47 U.S.C. § 571

Regulatory treatment of video programming services

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

(a) Limitations on cable regulation(1) Radio-based systems

To the extent that a common carrier (or any other person) is providing video programming to subscribers using radio communication, such carrier (or other person) shall be subject to the requirements of subchapter III and section 572 of this title, but shall not otherwise be subject to the requirements of this subchapter.

(2) Common carriage of video traffic

To the extent that a common carrier is providing transmission of video programming on a common carrier basis, such carrier shall be subject to the requirements of subchapter II and section 572 of this title, but shall not otherwise be subject to the requirements of this subchapter. This paragraph shall not affect the treatment under section 522(7)(C) of this title of a facility of a common carrier as a cable system.

(3) Cable systems and open video systemsTo the extent that a common carrier is providing video programming to its subscribers in any manner other than that described in paragraphs (1) and (2)—(A) such carrier shall be subject to the requirements of this subchapter, unless such programming is provided by means of an open video system for which the Commission has approved a certification under section 573 of this title; or(B) if such programming is provided by means of an open video system for which the Commission has approved a certification under section 573 of this title, such carrier shall be subject to the requirements of this part, but shall be subject to parts I through IV of this subchapter only as provided in 573(c) of this title.(4) Election to operate as open video system

A common carrier that is providing video programming in a manner described in paragraph (1) or (2), or a combination thereof, may elect to provide such programming by means of an open video system that complies with section 573 of this title. If the Commission approves such carrier’s certification under section 573 of this title, such carrier shall be subject to the requirements of this part, but shall be subject to parts I through IV of this subchapter only as provided in 573(c) of this title.

(b) Limitations on interconnection obligations

A local exchange carrier that provides cable service through an open video system or a cable system shall not be required, pursuant to subchapter II of this chapter, to make capacity available on a nondiscriminatory basis to any other person for the provision of cable service directly to subscribers.

A common carrier shall not be required to obtain a certificate under section 214 of this title with respect to the establishment or operation of a system for the delivery of video programming.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 651, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title III, § 302(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 118.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Walnut Creek, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Walnut Creek, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “See 47 U.S.C. § 571 (a)(3). Subchapter V-A is titled “Cable Communications” and includes the statutory requirement that cable operators may not provide cable service without a franchise.”

Grp. W Cable, Inc. v. City of Santa Cruz, 669 F. Supp. 954 (N.D. Cal. 1987). “On September 19, 1985 the parties stipulated that Santa Cruz could implement its RFP but that Group W’s participation in the process would not constitute a waiver of its rights under the First Amendment, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (“Cable Policy Act” or “Act”),…”

City of Dallas v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 165 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 47 U.S.C. § 571 (c). It thus exempts common carriers providing video service from the § 214 rule that [n]o carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an extension of any line .”

Tuttle v. Front Street Affordable Hous. Partners (D. Haw. 2020). “§ 421 (a); 47 U.S.C. § 571 (a). thereby creating more stringent terms to the qualified contract process.”

City of Dallas, TX v. FCC (5th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “continued) more than 95 percent of United States homes” and that “[s]ome of the initial forays of cable companies into the field of local telephony therefore hold the promise of providing the sort of local residential competition that has consistently been contemplated”); 47…”

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.