Ohio § 1332.22 Legislative findings regarding video service

Ohio Statutes

§ 1332.22 — Legislative findings regarding video service

Ohio § 1332.22

Title 13Commercial Transactions

Ch. 1332Fair Competition In Cable Operations

This text of Ohio § 1332.22 (Legislative findings regarding video service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1332.22 (2026).

Text

The general assembly finds and declares all of the following for the purposes of sections1332.21to1332.34of the Revised Code:

(A)Video service brings significant daily benefits to this state by providing news, education, and entertainment.

(B)This state's economy will be enhanced by investment in new communications and video programming infrastructure, including fiber optic and internet protocol technologies.

(C)Enhancing the existing broadband infrastructure and increasing consumer access to robust and reliable broadband products and services are important, statewide concerns.

(D)To date, there has been only minimal competitive entry by telephone companies into the facilities-based video programming market in this state, in part, because local franchise requirements may

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The general assembly finds and declares all of the following for the purposes of sections1332.21to1332.34of the Revised Code:

(A) Video service brings significant daily benefits to this state by providing news, education, and entertainment.

(B) This state's economy will be enhanced by investment in new communications and video programming infrastructure, including fiber optic and internet protocol technologies.

(C) Enhancing the existing broadband infrastructure and increasing consumer access to robust and reliable broadband products and services are important, statewide concerns.

(D) To date, there has been only minimal competitive entry by telephone companies into the facilities-based video programming market in this state, in part, because local franchise requirements may present barriers to entry.

(E) Increased competition in the provision of video service will provide new and more video programming choices for consumers in this state, and new providers have stated their desire to supply that service.

(F) The time-to-market interval is critical for new entrants seeking to compete with incumbents.

(G) Local franchise and other requirements may present inordinate delays for new entrants.

(H) This state can and should provide a uniform regulatory framework by which persons can rapidly and expeditiously provide video service to residents of this state regardless of their jurisdictional locations, which framework will promote rapid competitive entry into the video service market and encourage additional, significant infrastructure investment.

(I) Maintaining an existing franchise in cases where new entrants obtain video service authorizations is not appropriate unless the incumbent chooses to maintain that franchise.

(J) The continued development of Ohio's video service market and promotion of infrastructure investment are matters of statewide concern and are properly subject to exercises of this state's police power.

(K) By analogy to Am. Financial Servs. Assn. et al. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St. 3d 170, 2006-Ohio-6043, citing Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, syllabus, sections1332.21to1332.34of the Revised Code are intended as a comprehensive legislative enactment operating uniformly throughout this state, setting forth police regulations, and prescribing a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.