November 14, 2011
In 1992, it became a requirement for cable television systems to set aside some of their channels for local broadcast television. This requirement was because of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. Congress came to this decision after looking at three years of hearings on the cable broadcast industry. Among its most important aspects, the Act subjects the cable industry to rate regulation to the Federal Communications Commission, prohibits municipalities from awarding exclusive franchises to various cable operators and regulates the FCC develop regulations imposing technical standards for cable operators. In this case, the tough issues at hand are dealing with sections four and five of this Act which, requires for cable operators to carry the channels of a certain number of local broadcast stations. In 1994 then, the court held that the “must-carry” provisions pass the laws set in the Contstitution. This was determined when judges explained that the “must-carry” provisions supplemented governmental objectives. Also, the provision was narrowly tailored to agree with these governmental interests.
Legal Issue:
The issue at hand is the constitutionality of the “must-carry” provisions within sections 4 and 5 of the Act. In Section 4 involves the carriage of local television stations that operate within the same television market as the cable system. This means that any cable system with more than 12 active channels and 300+ subscribers must set aside one-third of its channels for local commercial broadcast stations. Section 5 says that a cable system with over 36 channels must carry each local public broadcast station requesting carriage.
Decision:
The court ruled in favor of Turner Broadcasting Corporation.
Analysis:
The court ruled in favor of the Turner Broadcasting Corporation because cable systems were seen as publishers meaning they had the right to restrict others from using their own system.
Questions:
1.) What rules under the Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act did Turner Broadcasting Corporation have a problem with?
2.) Why do you think that the court ruled the other way around when this case was remanded in 1997?
3.) Which First Amendment tests were used in this case that are also used for print media?
2 thoughts on “Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC (1994)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
It is very interesting to me the differences between broadcast and print media. Print media would never have the governmental restrictions placed on it that broadcast has. I find it interesting that the government makes broadcast networks devote over a third of their air time local programming. They are forcing them and telling them specifically what they can and cannot run. This would never fly in the print world because it would be seen as a form of prior restraint, yet in the case of broadcast, it is allowed. Do not get me wrong, I think it is great that we have local broadcasting. Without it we would not get out local news and we would not be able to see what is going on in our own sub-communities, like events and programs and news. I think that this is particularly vital for small towns because they would have no idea what is going on around them without local programming because they are in such a small market place for the media. Places like Cleveland and New York City would have all the coverage and places like Pemberville and Perrysburgh would have no coverage. With that said, I find it interesting that the government can regulate the media in the way that it does with broadcast. Is it because of its scope?
December 12th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
This post is a little confusing because it doesn’t explain that the court remanded the case back to the district court. It didn’t really rule in favor of Turner. On reconsideration, the district court did rule in favor of the government; thus, the must-carry provisions remain in place.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/turner.html