Supremes Hear Pole-Attachment Views

Hearn, Ted
October 2001
Multichannel News;10/8/2001, Vol. 22 Issue 41, p1
Focuses on the Supreme Court hearing of pole-attachment rates in the United States. Arguments over the regulation of pole rates; Efforts to protect cable operators from paying exorbitant pole-attachment rates; Federal efforts to preserve the rate-setting authority.


Related Articles

  • Court clears way for more Playboy. Hatch, David // Electronic Media;05/29/2000, Vol. 19 Issue 22, p21 

    Reports on the United States Supreme Court's decision on sex channels. Regulation of cable television; Option of 24-hour adult entertainment.

  • The indecency conundrum.  // Electronic Media;7/08/96, Vol. 15 Issue 28, p10 

    Opinion. Focuses on US Supreme Court's decision regarding indecent cable programming. Court's granting of the right to restrict material on leased access channels to cable operators; Relevance of the v-chip technology as a consumer-triggered sensor.

  • Court hears `safe harbor'. Hatch, David // Electronic Media;12/06/99, Vol. 18 Issue 49, p4 

    Deals with the United States (US) Supreme Court hearings on the oral arguments involving the constitutionality of a 1996 law requiring cable operators to scramble sexually explicit channels. Highlights on the law; Why the US Congress adopted the law; Details on the issue.

  • Supreme Court backs cable in access case. McConnell, Chris // Broadcasting & Cable;7/01/96, Vol. 126 Issue 28, p11 

    Reports on the US Supreme Court's upholding of a provision of the 1992 Cable Act. Offering of some flexibility to cable television operators in dealing with indecent programming on leased-access channels; Court's citing of local oversight of public educational and government access channels.

  • Court cool to must-carry. Stern, Christopher // Variety;10/14/96, Vol. 364 Issue 11, p80 

    Reports that US Supreme Court justices seem unconvinced of the legality of the law that requires cable television systems to set aside channels for broadcast television signals. Background on the law; Government and broadcasting industry lawyers' efforts to defend the law's constitutionality.

  • DOJ: Don't Review Subowner Regs. Hearn, Ted // Multichannel News;01/29/2001, Vol. 22 Issue 5, p34 

    Reports that the United States Department of Justice is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court not to review federal laws affecting the cable television industry as of January 29, 2001. Provisions of the cable television rules; Cable operator Time Warner Entertainment's protest against the rules.

  • High Court: States Can Bar City Munis. Haugsted, Linda // Multichannel News;3/29/2004, Vol. 25 Issue 13, p12 

    Reports on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24, 2004, which upheld the authority of states to prevent municipal governments from moving into the telecommunications business. Legal issue raised by the Missouri Attorney General on the interpretation of Section 253 of the Federal...

  • Justices take on cross-ownership. Boliek, Brooks // Hollywood Reporter;6/27/95, Vol. 337 Issue 43, p1 

    Reports that the US Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the law keeping the phone companies out of the cable business is a free-speech violation. Lower courts' ruling of the law's violation of the First Amendment; Congress' efforts to reform the law.

  • Right call by high court.  // Advertising Age;6/5/2000, Vol. 71 Issue 24, p26 

    This article presents the author's opinion regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's judgments in a dispute between the First Amendment rights of business and the powers of government to curb those rights. The court examined a 1996 federal law aimed at protecting children from incidental exposure to...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics