FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2907966719> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2907966719 startingPage "6" @default.
• W2907966719 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION II. MUST-CARRY'S PURPOSE A. Cable Becomes a Threat to Broadcasting B. FCC. Attempts to Protect Local Broadcasting from Cable C. Objections to the Must-Carry Provisions D. Road to the Modern Must-Carry Law: Century Communications and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 1. The Case that Caused Congressional Intervention: Century Communications v. FCC 2. Congress Writes the Must-Carry Rules: The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 III. THE TURNER DECISIONS A. Turner I B. Turner I on Remand to the District Court C. Turner II IV. TURNER REASSESSED: FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION OF THE MUST-CARRY RULES A. Turner was a Facial Challenge B. Facial Challenge Jurisprudence: Res Judicata from the Turner II Decision Will Not Preclude As Applied Challenges to the Must-Carry Law C. How Advancing Technology is Undermining Turner's Premise: Must-Carry Applied to Markets with Multiple Cable Equivalent Services is Constitutionally Inappropriate 1. A Competitive Market Can Achieve the Governmental Ends Without the Must-Carry Law. 2. Addressing the Opposition V. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable operators and cable programmers, Congress revised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act). (1) In 1997, the Supreme Court determined that the must-carry law was constitutional under an intermediate scrutiny test. (2) The Court's decision was ultimately based on the determination that Congress relied on substantial evidence when inferring that broadcasters would be hurt without the must-carry rules. However, does the Turner II (3) decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry rules? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges. Because the must-carry rules were facially challenged in the Turner decisions, no party is precluded from challenging the rules as applied. Although subsequent challengers of the must-carry law have the burden of overcoming the deference afforded to Congress's findings, this should be possible. In many markets, the central premise to Congress's findings--cable will abuse its market power by behaving anticompetitively toward broadcasting--is no longer or increasingly less possible. After all, Turner I (4) established that a harm must actually be proven, and Turner II merely established that Congress' findings were sufficient to withstand a facial application of First Amendment scrutiny. This Note has four subsequent Parts. Part II will provide background on the birth of the must-carry rules. Part III will discuss the Turner decisions. Part IV will discuss must-carry rules today and the impact of the Turner decisions on future litigation. Part V concludes the Note. II. MUST-CARRY'S PURPOSE A. Cable Becomes a Threat to Broadcasting The must-carry provisions are as old as the initial attempts to regulate cable, which began when cable was first perceived as a threat to broadcasting. Cable was first used in the 1940s as a means to facilitate broadcasting. (5) Because broadcast waves reflect off of mountains, (6) instead of bending around them, individuals living in mountainous areas had a difficult time receiving broadcast signals. In order to solve this problem, large antennae were placed on mountain tops, and cables were run from the head end, (7) where the broadcast signals from an antenna were collected, to people's homes in the surrounding communities. …" @default.
• W2907966719 created "2019-01-11" @default.
• W2907966719 creator A5005314477 @default.
• W2907966719 date "2008-03-01" @default.
• W2907966719 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2907966719 title "Reassessing Turner and Litigating the Must-Carry Law Beyond a Facial Challenge" @default.
• W2907966719 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2907966719 type Work @default.
• W2907966719 sameAs 2907966719 @default.
• W2907966719 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2907966719 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2907966719 hasAuthorship W2907966719A5005314477 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C2776299755 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C2987985974 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C543172590 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConcept C76155785 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C10138342 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C127413603 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C144024400 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C162324750 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C17744445 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C199539241 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C2776299755 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C2778272461 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C2987985974 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C543172590 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C71043370 @default.
• W2907966719 hasConceptScore W2907966719C76155785 @default.
• W2907966719 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2907966719 hasLocation W29079667191 @default.
• W2907966719 hasOpenAccess W2907966719 @default.
• W2907966719 hasPrimaryLocation W29079667191 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W10098850 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W1484857524 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W1592183561 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W1598283195 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W171831100 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W1916409414 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W1987132285 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W2142601531 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W226806739 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W2431925153 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W2805492771 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W2899305262 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W3122805971 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W3123763376 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W3125212664 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W3126144396 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W42119714 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W605883317 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W806726102 @default.
• W2907966719 hasRelatedWork W3124077884 @default.
• W2907966719 hasVolume "60" @default.
• W2907966719 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2907966719 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2907966719 magId "2907966719" @default.
• W2907966719 workType "article" @default.