47 U.S.C. § 533

Ownership restrictions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Cable operator holding license for multichannel distribution or offering satellite serviceIt shall be unlawful for a cable operator to hold a license for multichannel multipoint distribution service, or to offer satellite master antenna television service separate and apart from any franchised cable service, in any portion of the franchise area served by that cable operator’s cable system. The Commission—(1) shall waive the requirements of this paragraph for all existing multichannel multipoint distribution services and satellite master antenna television services which are owned by a cable operator on October 5, 1992;(2) may waive the requirements of this paragraph to the extent the Commission determines is necessary to ensure that all significant portions of a franchise area are able to obtain video programming; and(3) shall not apply the requirements of this subsection to any cable operator in any franchise area in which a cable operator is subject to effective competition as determined under section 543(l) of this title.(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 104–104, title III, § 302(b)(1), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 124(c) Promulgation of rules

The Commission may prescribe rules with respect to the ownership or control of cable systems by persons who own or control other media of mass communications which serve the same community served by a cable system.

(d) Regulation of ownership by States or franchising authorities

Any State or franchising authority may not prohibit the ownership or control of a cable system by any person because of such person’s ownership or control of any other media of mass communications or other media interests. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person’s ownership or control of any other cable system in such jurisdiction; or (2) in circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction.

(e) Holding of ownership interests or exercise of editorial control by States or franchising authorities(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a State or franchising authority may hold any ownership interest in any cable system.(2) Any State or franchising authority shall not exercise any editorial control regarding the content of any cable service on a cable system in which such governmental entity holds ownership interest (other than programming on any channel designated for educational or governmental use), unless such control is exercised through an entity separate from the franchising authority.(f) Enhancement of effective competition(1) In order to enhance effective competition, the Commission shall, within one year after October 5, 1992, conduct a proceeding—(A) to prescribe rules and regulations establishing reasonable limits on the number of cable subscribers a person is authorized to reach through cable systems owned by such person, or in which such person has an attributable interest;(B) to prescribe rules and regulations establishing reasonable limits on the number of channels on a cable system that can be occupied by a video programmer in which a cable operator has an attributable interest; and(C) to consider the necessity and appropriateness of imposing limitations on the degree to which multichannel video programming distributors may engage in the creation or production of video programming.(2) In prescribing rules and regulations under paragraph (1), the Commission shall, among other public interest objectives—(A) ensure that no cable operator or group of cable operators can unfairly impede, either because of the size of any individual operator or because of joint actions by a group of operators of sufficient size, the flow of video programming from the video programmer to the consumer;(B) ensure that cable operators affiliated with video programmers do not favor such programmers in determining carriage on their cable systems or do not unreasonably restrict the flow of the video programming of such programmers to other video distributors;(C) take particular account of the market structure, ownership patterns, and other relationships of the cable television industry, including the nature and market power of the local franchise, the joint ownership of cable systems and video programmers, and the various types of non-equity controlling interests;(D) account for any efficiencies and other benefits that might be gained through increased ownership or control;(E) make such rules and regulations reflect the dynamic nature of the communications marketplace;(F) not impose limitations which would bar cable operators from serving previously unserved rural areas; and(G) not impose limitations which would impair the development of diverse and high quality video programming.(g) Combination of interests under prior law

This section shall not apply to prohibit any combination of any interests held by any person on July 1, 1984, to the extent of the interests so held as of such date, if the holding of such interests was not inconsistent with any applicable Federal or State law or regulations in effect on that date.

(h) “Media of mass communications” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “media of mass communications” shall have the meaning given such term under section 309(i)(3)(C)(i) of this title.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 613, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2785; amended Pub. L. 102–385, § 11, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1486; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 303(a)(22), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4295; Pub. L. 104–104, title II, § 202(i), title III, §§ 302(b)(1), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 112, 124.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–104, § 202(i), redesignated par. (2) as subsec. (a) and subpars. (A) and (B) of par. (2) as pars. (1) and (2) of subsec. (a), respectively, added par. (3), and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to be a cable operator if such person, directly or through 1 or more affiliates, owns or controls, the licensee of a television broadcast station and the predicted grade B contour of such station covers any portion of the community served by such operator’s cable system.”

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–104, § 302(b)(1), struck out subsec. (b), which related to common carriers, direct video programming, an exception for rural areas, and waiver.

1994—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–414 substituted “pole, line, conduit space” for “pole line conduit space”.

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–385, § 11(a), designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–385, § 11(b), substituted “any other media” for “any media” and inserted at end “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person’s ownership or control of any other cable system in such jurisdiction; or (2) in circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction.”

Subsecs. (f) to (h). Pub. L. 102–385, § 11(c), added subsec. (f) and redesignated former subsecs. (f) and (g) as (g) and (h), respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–385 effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as a note under section 325 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Time Warner Ent. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Time Warner Ent. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 13× “1460 (“1992 Cable Act”), amends 47 U.S.C. § 533 to direct the Federal Communications Commission to set two types of limits on cable operators.”

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 520 U.S. 180 (1997). · cites it 6× “The cap on carriage of affiliates included in the Cable Act, 47 U. S. C. § 533 (f)(1)(B); 47 CFR § 76.”

Comcast Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “Background The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 directed the FCC, "[i]n order to enhance effective competition," 47 U.S.C. § 533 (f)(1), to prescrib[e] rules and regulations .”

Warner Cable Commc'ns, Inc., an Illinois Corp. v. City of Niceville, 911 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “The district court advanced alternative grounds for holding that Ordinance 609, establishing an independent editorial programming board pursuant to the Cable Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 533 (e)(2), did not offend the Florida Constitution’s prohibition against the delegation of…”

US West, Inc. v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 1184 (W.D. Wash. 1994). · cites it 5× “1 Plaintiffs wish to provide cable television programming within their respective service areas and are precluded from doing so by the current prohibition contained in 47 U.S.C. § 533 (b). *1186 Plaintiffs have named as defendants the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)…”

Cable Alabama Corp. v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 768 F. Supp. 1484 (N.D. Ala. 1991). · cites it 7× “By way of relief, the plaintiff seeks (1) a declaration that Section 14 of its franchise agreement with the defendants is void as being violative of 47 U.S.C. § 533 (d), the First Amendment, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the…”

Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Hudson, 667 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 2012). “See 47 U.S.C. § 533 (b)(1) (1994) repealed by Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.”

Kurtis B. Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1991). “See 47 U.S.C. § 533 (e) (permitting ownership by a "State or franchising authority” so long as that entity does not exercise editorial control over programming).”

Time Warner Ent. Co. v. United States, 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 533 (f)(1)(A). The “channel occupancy provision” directs the Commission to limit the number of channels on a cable system that may be devoted to video programming in which the operator has a financial interest.”

CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Westchester Terrace at Crisfield Condo., 235 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “CSC’s Third Cause of Action for breach of contract, Fourth Cause of Action for breach of Public Service Law § 228, Sixth Cause of Action for intentional interference with contract, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action for unauthorized reception of cable service, pursuant to 47 U.”

Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Virginia v. United States, 830 F. Supp. 909 (E.D. Va. 1993). · cites it 2× “Specifically, plaintiffs challenge subsections (1) and (2) of 47 U.S.C. § 533 (b) (“§ 533(b)”), which prohibit telephone companies, and their affiliates, from providing video programming to subscribers within their service areas.”

Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton, 386 S.E.2d 200 (N.C. 1989). “” 47 U.S.C.A. § 533 (e)(1) (West 1984). Under the federal Act, however, the City Council may not exercise content control over the channels offered but must instead either designate an agency separate from the Council (such as an independent board or commission) to make…”

Show all 58 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 533(f)(2)(E) — 1 case

Comcast Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Background The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 directed the FCC, "[i]n order to enhance effective competition," 47 U.S.C. § 533 (f)(1), to prescrib[e] rules and regulations .”

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.