gave up its cable franchise, the locality likely would accept bids for a new cable operator. But whatever entity began cable operations would have to construct or acquire a network — a costly and time-consuming venture. The former cable operator probably would maintain a monopoly position and get the benefits of regulatory relief, for some time. 21 .See Reconsideration Order ¶ 51 (providing that "pursuant to the second sentence of Section 653(a)(1), the public interest, convenience and necessity is served by generally prohibiting a competing, in-region cable operator from obtaining capacity on an open video system”). 22 . id. ¶ 52. 23 . See Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 310-11, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160 (1936); Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 963 n. 3 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); National Ass’n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs
holding that an agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities holding that land dedicated for a public street may not be leased to a private entity for private use holding that public entities may be held vicariously hable for the negligent acts of their individual employees holding that government entities may not assert qualified immunity holding in age discrimination case under adea that same considerations are pertinent when deciding single employer issue for public entities as for private entities and applying nlrb test to resolve the question noting that where government entities are concerned court also must keep constitutional separation of powers issues in mind