FEDERAL · 47 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER V–A—CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Ownership restrictions
47 U.S.C. § 533
This text of 47 U.S.C. § 533 (Ownership restrictions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
47 U.S.C. § 533.
Text
(a)Cable operator holding license for multichannel distribution or offering satellite service
It 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 a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
520 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Kurtis B. Borre v. United States
940 F.2d 215 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission
579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Warner Cable Communications, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. City of Niceville
911 F.2d 634 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
Melcher v. Federal Communications Commission
134 F.3d 1143 (D.C. Circuit, 1998)
City of Chicago v. Federal Communications Commission
199 F.3d 424 (Seventh Circuit, 1999)
National Cable Television Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission
33 F.3d 66 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. United States
211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Circuit, 2000)
Northwestern Indiana Telephone Company, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
824 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)
US West, Inc. v. United States
48 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
US West, Inc. v. United States
855 F. Supp. 1184 (W.D. Washington, 1994)
GTE California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
39 F.3d 940 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Paragould
809 S.W.2d 688 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1991)
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
93 F.3d 957 (D.C. Circuit, 1996)
Paragon Cable Television Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., City of Brookfield, Intervenors
822 F.2d 152 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Roberts
477 S.W.3d 293 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2015)
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. United States
42 F.3d 181 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Pacific Telesis Group v. United States
48 F.3d 1106 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
South Carolina Cable Television Ass'n v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
417 S.E.2d 586 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992)
American Scholastic TV Programming Foundation v. Federal Communications Commission
46 F.3d 1173 (D.C. Circuit, 1995)
Source Credit
History
(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 Notes
Editorial Notes
Amendments
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 Subsidiaries
Effective 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.
Amendments
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 Subsidiaries
Effective 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.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
47 U.S.C. § 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/47/533.