47 U.S.C. § 322
Exchanging radio communications between land and ship stations and from ship to ship
Every land station open to general public service between the coast and vessels or aircraft at sea shall, within the scope of its normal operations, be bound to exchange radio communications or signals with any ship or aircraft station at sea; and each station on shipboard or aircraft at sea shall, within the scope of its normal operations, be bound to exchange radio communications or signals with any other station on shipboard or aircraft at sea or with any land station open to general public service between the coast and vessels or aircraft at sea: Provided, That such exchange of radio communication shall be without distinction as to radio systems or instruments adopted by each station.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Scranton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 222 (M.D. Penn. 1999).
Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Scranton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 222 (M.D. Penn. 1999). “47 U.S.C. § 322 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Magistrate Judge Durkin determined that the Zoning Board’s refusal to allow Omnipoint to place its antennae within the C-N district violated this provision of the Telecommunications Act because it effectively prohibited a new personal…”
Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst, NY, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). “DISCUSSION In its complaint, Nextel raises four causes of action: (1) the ZBA violated Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 322 (c)(7) (2002), by unreasonably discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent wireless services, and by…”
Athens Cellular Inc. v. Oconee Cnty., Georgia, 886 F.3d 1094 (11th Cir. 2018). “The limitations on state and local governments are both substantive and procedural in nature and are set forth in Section 704(a) of the TCA, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 322 (c)(7)(B). The TCA provides that a state or local government or instrumentality, in regulating personal…”
USCOC of Virginia RSA 3, Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 245 F. Supp. 2d 817 (W.D. Va. 2003). “CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the defendant has failed to issue a decision based on substantial evidence in a written record, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 322 (c)(7)(B)(iii). An appropriate order shall this day issue.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Council of Twp. of Hampton, 686 A.2d 905 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). “Even without the direction of 47 U.S.C. § 322 (c), the trial court properly held that the Objectors had not met their burden of proving a high degree of probability that the use would adversely impact on the public interest.”
WJG Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 675 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Rivercom emphasizes Section 322 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 322 (1976), which requires that land stations “be bound to exchange radio communications or signals with any ship” as sea, “without distinction as to radio systems or instruments adopted by each *372 station.”
Nasuca v. Fcc, 468 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2006). “47 U.S.C. § 322 (c)(3)(A). The Commission has concluded that the states may not regulate the method by which wireless service providers calculate the length of a call because it affects “which services to charge for and how much to charge for these services.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.