Debbie D. Treaster, Lenexa, Kan. Kent Sullivan, James W. This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in both of the above-captioned companion cases. Because case no. Harris, F. Watson, F. In these actions, this court is once again asked to interpret the subscriber privacy provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of hereafter referred to as "the Cable Act" or "the Act" , 47 U.
Because the court finds that oral argument would not be of material assistance in its determination of the motions before it, defendant's requests for oral argument are denied. For purposes of the parties' present motions, the court finds the following facts to be uncontroverted.
On February 21, , TeleCable began to provide Scofield "cable service," as that term is defined in the Act. The service provided by TeleCable included video programming and rebroadcast of the television broadcast signals of local Kansas City television stations.
At all relevant times, TeleCable was a "cable operator" as that term is used in the Act. From February 21, , until the cable service was disconnected on December 28, at Barton, Overland Park, Kansas, Scofield was a "subscriber" of the cable service provided by TeleCable. On January 6, , Scofield's cable service was reconnected at another address where he is still a subscriber at present; Scofield's subscription has been continuous since During the time that Scofield received cable service from TeleCable, he never requested new, improved, or expanded cable service, except by his use of payper-view service.
It is undisputed that Scofield has never given written consent or "electronic consent" as that term is defined in the Act for TeleCable to disclose personally identifiable information concerning him.
