Tech Law Journal

Capitol Dome
News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors

TLJ Links: Home | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Other: Thomas | USC | CFR | FR | FCC | USPTO | CO | NTIA | EDGAR


Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Re: AT&T and TCI v. Portland and Multnomah County, U.S.D.C., Oregon, Case No. CV 99-65-PA.

Part I: Case caption, Table of Contents, and Table of Authorities.
Date: March 26, 1999.
Source: Law Offices of Davis, Wright & Tremaine. This document was created by converting a MS Word document into HTML. Some formatting features were lost in the conversion process. This document has been edited for HTML, but not for content.

Part II, the body of memorandum, is on a second page.


DUANE A. BOSWORTH
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300
Portland, Oregon 97201
Telephone (503) 241-2300
Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
duanebosworth@dwt.com
Oregon State Bar No. 82507

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs AT&T Corp; Tele-Communications, Inc.;
TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc.; and TCI of Southern Washington

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
AT Portland

AT&T CORP.; TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. and TCI OF SOUTHERN WASHINGTON,

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND; and MULTNOMAH COUNTY,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No. CV 99-65 PA

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Technology.
B. The Services.
C. The Role of Local Franchising Authorities.
D. The Merger.
1. Federal Review.
2. Local Review.
III. ARGUMENT
A. The Franchise Agreements Prohibit the Condition for Approval.
1. The HI Franchise.
2. The Portland and Multnomah County Agreements.
B. The Cable Act Prohibits the City and County From Requiring AT&T and TCI to Open Their Cable System to All Online and Internet Service Providers.
1. The Cable Act Preempts the City and County From Requiring Mandatory Access to AT&T and TCI’s Cable Modem Platform.
2. The City and County Are Preempted From Imposing Requirements Regarding Access to the Cable System For Preferred Programming.
3. The Cable Act Preempts Local Franchising Authorities From Requiring Cable Operators to Become Common Carriers.
4. Section 624(e) Preempts Franchising Authorities From Regulating AT&T and TCI’s Use of Their Cable Facilities.
5. The City and County’s Access Requirement Would So Frustrate Congressional Objectives That It Must Be Preempted.
C. The Mandatory Access Condition Violates the First Amendment.
D. The Mandatory Access Condition Violates Article 1, Section 21 of the Oregon Constitution by Substantially Impairing Established Contract Rights.
E. The Mandatory Access Condition Violates Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
F. The Ordinances Violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution by Placing Unnecessary Burdens on Interstate Commerce.
IV. CONCLUSION

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FEDERAL CASES

Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381 (9th Cir. 1995) 19
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978) 33, 34
American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 35
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959) 35
Cable Alabama Corporation v. City of Huntsville, 768 F. Supp. 1484 (N.D. Ala. 1991) 21
Cable Television Association of N.Y., Inc. v. Finneran, 954 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1992) 16
Cablevision System Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 862 F. Supp. 875 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd, 57 F.3d 1062 (2d Cir. 1995) 19
California Prolife Council Political Action Committee v. Scully, 989 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1998) 29
California v. FCC, 75 F.3d 1350 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1216 (1996) 26
California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990) 24
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) 17, 19, 21, 26
Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 1995) 29
City of Dallas, Texas v. FCC, __ F.3d __, 1999 WL 16395 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 1999) 24
City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488 (1986) 30
City of New York v. F,CC, 486 U.S. 57 (1988) 18, 19, 25
City of New York v. FCC, 814 F.2d 720 (D.C. Cir. 1987), aff'd, 486 U.S. 57 (1988) 17, 18, 26
Cox Cable Communications, Inc. v. Simpson, 569 F. Supp. 507 (D. Neb. 1983) 35
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) 34
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996) 28
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983) 33, 34
FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984) 28
FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979) 16, 24
Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995) 19, 27
GTE South Inc. v. Morrison, 6 F. Supp. 2d 517 (E.D. Va. 1998) 16
Guidry Cablevision/Simul Vision Cable System v. City of Ballwin, 117 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 1997) 17
Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989) 35
J.G.N. Corp. v. National America Insurance Co., 736 F. Supp. 1570 (D. Or. 1988) 13, 15
Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977) 26
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981) 35
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987) 33
In re Lorilei Communications, Inc. d/b/a The Firm v. TCA Cable of Fayetteville, Arkansas, 13 F.C.C. Rcd 1687 (1997) 23
Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1969) 19
Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) 28
Midwest Video Corp. v. FCC, 571 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1978), aff'd, 440 U.S. 689 (1979) 22, 24
One World One Family Now v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1996) 29
Orthopaedic Hospital v. Belshe, 103 F.3d 1491 (9th Cir. 1997) 16
Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Paragould, 930 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1991) 31
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) 34, 35, 36
Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978) 27
Russell v. Burris, 978 F. Supp. 1211 (E.D. Ark. 1997) 29
SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103 (1978) 16
Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) 29
Shamrock Farms Co. v. Veneman, 146 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1998) 35
State of Nevada Employees Association, Inc. v. Keating, 903 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1990) 33, 34
Storer Cable Communications v. City of Montgomery, 806 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D. Ala. 1992) 31, 34, 35
Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Bloomberg L.P., 118 F.3d 917 (2d Cir. 1997) 22
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 22
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC [Turner I], 512 U.S. 622 (1994) 24, 27, 29, 30, 31
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC [Turner II], 117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997) 28, 39, 30
United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) 33, 34
United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968) 16, 17, 35
U S WEST Communications, Inc. v. TCG Or., ___ F. Supp. 2d __, 1998 WL 897023 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 1998) 16

STATE CASES

Eckles v. State, 306 Or. 380, 760 P.2d 846 (1988) 31, 32
Hughes v. State, 314 Or. 1, 838 P.2d 1018 (1992) 31, 32
Oregon State Police Officers' Association v. State, 323 Or. 356, 918 P.2d 765 (1996) 33
Rose City Transit v. City of Portland, 18 Or. App. 369, 525 P.2d 1325 (1974) 11, 12

STATUTES

47 U.S.C. 151 16
47 U.S.C. 153(20) 20
47 U.S.C. 230(a)(4)    27
47 U.S.C. 251(h)(1) 24
47 U.S.C. 310(d) 5
47 U.S.C. 521 16, 17, 26
47 U.S.C. 522(20) 22, 24
47 U.S.C. 531 22
47 U.S.C. 532 22, 23
47 U.S.C. 534 21
47 U.S.C. 537 7, 8, 15
47 U.S.C. 541 15, 20, 23
47 U.S.C. 544 20, 25
47 U.S.C. 546 15
47 U.S.C. 556 19
47 U.S.C. 571 24

MISCELLANEOUS

Barbara Esbin, Internet Over Cable: Defining the Future in Terms of the Past, FCC Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper, 1998 FCC LEXIS 4518 (Sept. 3, 1998) 2, 3, 4
James C. Goodale, All About Cable (1981) 5
In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming, Fifth Annual Report, CS Docket No. 98-102, FCC Rep. 98-335 (released December 23, 1998) 2, 3, 4
In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from Tele-Communications, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 98-178, FCC Opinion & Order 99-24 (released Feb. 18, 1999) passim
In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 8 F.C.C. Rcd 6828 8, 15
In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Mem. Opin. & Order on Reconsideration, 8
In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, FCC Rep. 99-5 (released February 2, 1999) 3, 7
Neal K. Katyal, Judges as Advicegivers, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1709 (1998) 28
Eugene McQuillin, 12 McQuillin Municipal Corporations (3d ed. 1970) 12, 13, 15
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 (1996) 25
H.R. Rep. No. 102-628 (1992) 21
H.R. Rep. No. 104-204 (1995) 25
H.R. Rep. No. 98-934 (1984) 17
Or. Const. art. 1, 31
U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 3 34
U.S. Const. art. 1, 10 33
130 Cong. Rec. 32,284 (1984) 18
 

Subscriptions | FAQ | Notices & Disclaimers | Privacy Policy
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.
Phone: 202-364-8882. P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.