U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part IV— Miscellaneous Provisions

47 U.S.C. § 556

Coordination of Federal, State, and local authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Regulation by States, political subdivisions, State and local agencies, and franchising authorities

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, regarding matters of public health, safety, and welfare, to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this subchapter.

(b) State jurisdiction with regard to cable services

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to restrict a State from exercising jurisdiction with regard to cable services consistent with this subchapter.

(c) Preemption

Except as provided in section 557 of this title, any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded.

(d) “State” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “State” has the meaning given such term in section 153 of this title.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 636, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2800; amended Pub. L. 104–104, § 3(d)(3), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 61.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104–104 substituted “section 153” for “section 153(v)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 50 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., 375 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., 375 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 47 USC § 556 (c) (“Except as provided in section 557 of this title, any provision of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this chapter…”
Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Mun. of Caguas, 417 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 47 U.S.C. § 556 (c). *220 In the case of Puerto Rico, its legislature created an agency — the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico— to be its “franchising authority” under the Cable Act.”
Council v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 788 A.2d 29 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “) Because these provisions expressly identify only the incumbent cable operator as the party able to obtain judicial review of a decision of a franchising authority, we conclude that, in light of the third key provision, 47 U.S.C. § 556 (c), 14 which provides in part that “any…”
Blab T v. of Mobile, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 182 F.3d 851 (11th Cir. 1999). “In addition, in a section entitled “Coordination of Federal, State, and Local Authority,” the Cable Act provides that “[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to restrict a State from exercising jurisdiction with regard to cable services consistent with this subchapter.”
Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “While the Act provides in one section that state laws and regulations inconsistent with it are preempted and superseded, 47 U.S.C. § 556 , other sections specifically preserve provisions of existing franchises and of state law, e.”
MediaOne Grp., Inc. v. Cnty. of Henrico, 257 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “See 47 U.S.C. § 556 (c) ("[A]ny provi- sion of law of any .”
NCTA - The Internet & TV Ass'n v. Frey, 7 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “- 10 - is set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 556 (c). It states that "any provision of law of any State .”
Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 862 F. Supp. 875 (E.D.N.Y 1994). · cites it 3× “47 U.S.C. § 556 (e) (emphasis added). Cablevision contends that a franchise agreement that requires a cable operator to provide more than the minimum contents set forth in Section 543 is inconsistent with the Act; and, therefore, Congress intended to preempt any such franchise…”
City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 900 N.E.2d 256 (Ill. 2008). “” 47 U.S.C. §556 (c) (2000). Indeed, even section 29.”
James Cable Partners, L.P. v. City of Jamestown, 818 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “at 47 U.S.C. § 556 . 2 . The Act specifically provides that "[a]ny Federal agency or State may not regulate the rates for the provision of cable service except to the extent provided under this section.”
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Walnut Creek, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “” See 47 U.S.C. § 556 (c). Defendants argue that “[t]he Cable Act does not even discuss the franchising of non-cable services, so local franchising of non-cable services is in no way inconsistent with the Cable Act.”
Storer Cable Commc'ns v. City of Montgomery, 806 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D. Ala. 1992). “See 47 U.S.C.A. § 556 (a) (act does not preempt local police powers when exercised “to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this subchapter”); 47 U.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— 47 U.S.C. § 556(c) — 1 case
Collector of Winchester, Missouri, & City of Winchester, Missouri v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., & Charter Commc'ns, LLC, & Charter Fiberlink-Missouri, LLC, & Charter Advanced Servs. (MO), LLC (Mo. Ct. App. 2022).
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.