Who paid to maintain Winnsboro’s public-access channel character generator?

Plain-English summary

In May 2020, the South Carolina Attorney General declined to decide whether Winnsboro or its cable provider had to pay the annual maintenance fee for a public, educational, and governmental access channel's character generator. The answer depended on what the equipment actually did, and the office lacked the facts needed to determine that function.

The Competitive Cable Services Act placed operation of the access channel with the town and transmission and specified connectivity with the holder of the state cable certificate. If the character generator served connectivity or transmission, the provider would bear that responsibility; if it served channel operation, the town would. The opinion treated an expired local franchise as replaced by the state framework.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion make the cable provider pay the character-generator fee?
A: It did not decide. The office said responsibility depended on whether the equipment served transmission or channel operation.

Q: Who handled a PEG channel's operation under the statute discussed?
A: The opinion assigned channel operation to the municipality receiving its benefit.

Q: What was the state certificate holder’s role?
A: The opinion described responsibility for transmitting the channel and providing specified connectivity to its distribution point.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read the state cable-franchise law after the town's earlier franchise had expired. It separated duties for channel operation from duties for transmission and connectivity. Because the record did not establish the character generator's function, it did not give a conclusive answer on the particular maintenance charge.

Citations and references

The legal authorities discussed above appear in the official opinion. The analysis addressed the request as presented in 2020.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-13-2020-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FantryJ-OS-10473-FINAL-Opinion-5-13-2020-02277372xD2C78-02280254xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

Alan Wilson
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 13, 2020

John J. Fantry, Jr.
102 Marion Ave.

Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180

Dear Mr. Fantry:

We understand from your letter you are the Special Utility Counsel for the Town of Winnsboro (the "Town") and would like to request an opinion of this Office concerning a dispute between the Town and Fairfield Communications, Inc. d/b/a TruVista ("TruVista"). In your letter you explain as follows: Prior to the adoption of Title 59 Chapter 12 of the South Carolina Code ("South Carolina Competitive Cable Services Act"), TruVista had a Franchise for Cable Television from the Town of Winnsboro. This franchise included

provision 16.5 requiring TruVista to activate the educational channel and furnish and maintain the equipment, "Grantee shall furnish and maintain all equipment necessary for transmitting signals from one location to the headend for each such channel."

When the Town Franchise expired TruVista applied and received a State Issued Certificate of Franchise Authority which was granted on February 7, 2014. TruVista has offered to donate to Winnsboro a new character generator for Channel 3. However, while the first Character Generator was supplied at no cost to the Town, the new Character Generator, after the first year, will have an Annual Maintenance Fee of $742.50. TruVista alleges that the state law governing TruVista's franchise clearly provides that TruVista's obligation is limited to providing access (i.e., connectivity) to a PEG channel. Based on this information, you ask "[i]s the annual maintenance fee proposed by TruVista allowed under the State Franchise? Law/Analvsis

As you mentioned in your letter, the South Carolina Competitive Cable Services Act (the "Act") governs all cable and video service franchises. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 58-12-5 et seq. (2015). REKfiJERT C.Dennis Building . Post Office Box. 11549 - Columbia,SC 29211-1549 a Telephone 803-734-3970 • FACSif/iiLE 803-253-6283

John J. Fantry, Jr.
Page 2

May 13, 2020

According to section 58-12-5(B), "[ajfter the effective date of this act, no municipality or county

may issue a cable franchise pursuant to Section 58-12-30. A municipality or county may continue to enforce existing cable franchises until they expire or are terminated pursuant to Section 58-12-325." Further, section 58-12-5(C) provides "[t]his chapter occupies the entire

field of franchising or otherwise regulating cable and video service and preempts any ordinance, resolution, or similar matter adopted by a municipality or county that purports to address franchising or otherwise regulating cable or video service." We understand from your letter that the Town and TruVista previously operated under a franchise agreement until it expired, but their relationship is now governed under the Act. Section 58-12-370 of the South Carolina Code (2015) requires holders of a state-issued certificate of franchise authority to provide a municipality or county requesting it with the right to use public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access channels for noncommercial Section 58-12-370 further explains the S.C. Code Ann. § 58-12-370(A). programming. responsibilities of municipalities and certificate holders: (E) The operation of any PEG access channel provided pursuant to this section is the responsibility of the municipality, the county, or the Educational

Television Commission receiving the benefit of the channel, and the holder of a state-issued certificate of franchise authority bears only the responsibility for the transmission of the channel. The holder of a state-issued certificate of franchise authority must be responsible for providing the connectivity to each PEG access channel distribution point up to the first two hundred feet. (F) The municipality, the county, or the Educational Television Commission shall ensure that all transmissions of content and programming provided by or

arranged by them to be transmitted over a PEG channel by a holder of a stateissued certificate of franchise authority are provided and submitted to the cable or video service provider in a manner or form that is capable of being accepted and transmitted by the provider over its network without further alteration or change in the content or transmission signal, and which is

compatible with the technology or protocol utilized by the cable or video service provider to deliver its cable or video services. According to these provisions, the answer to your question depends on whether a character generator, and more specifically the annual maintenance fee, relates to the connectivity or transmission of the PEG access channel or whether it relates to the operation of the PEG access

channel. We are not aware of the exact function a character generator performs, but if it is related to the connectivity or transmission of the PEG access channel, it would be TruVista's responsibility as the certificate holder. Conversely, if the character generator is used in the operation of the PEG access channel, then the Town would be responsible for it and its maintenance. The function a character generator involves the determination of facts, which is beyond the scope of an opinion of this Office. See Op. Atfv Gen.. 2015 WL 4497734 (S.C.A.G.

John J. Fantry, Jr.
Page 3
May 13,2020

July 2, 2015) (stating "as we have cautioned in numerous opinions, this Office does not have the

jurisdiction of a court to investigate and determine facts.").

Therefore, we cannot make a

conclusive determination as to whether the character generator is the responsibility of the Town or TruVista. However, we hope this opinion will assist you in making the correct determination. Conclusion

According to the South Carolina Competitive Cable Services Act, the responsibility for a

character generator and more specifically its maintenance depends on whether it is used in ensuring connectivity to and transmission of the Town's PEG access channel.

If so, section 58

12-370 places the responsibility for it on the certificate holder, which in this case would be

TruVista. However, if the character generator and its maintenance relate to the operation of the Town's PEG access channel, section 58-12-370 places responsibility for this expense on the Town.

Sincerely,

Cydney Millin'
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert I). Cook

Solicitor General