Communications Law Commons^™

Fame, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Cable Tv, Indecency And The Court, Jonathan Weinberg

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Free Speech In Cyberspace: Communications Decency And Beyond, Robert M. O'Neil

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

It is a great honor to be this year's Emanuel Emroch Lecturer. Though I never had the privilege of knowing Mr. Emroch, I do feel on this occasion as though I were almost an honorary member of the Emroch family. And I am deeply grateful to that family for having continued a tradition which seems to me as fitting and as appropriate a memorial as one could imagine. It is a living memorial in the best sense and it gives those who gather in the name of the person being so honored a chance not only to carry on their …

The Communications Decency Act: Aborting The First Amendment?, Sheryl L. Herndon L. Herndon

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

On February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law and explained that the legislation would "stimulate investment, promote competition, [and] provide open access for all citizens to the Information Superhighway." However, contrary to the goal of "opening wide the door to the Information Age," provisions of the Act violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech by imposing far-reaching new federal criminal liabilities on Americans who exercise their free speech rights on the Internet. In particular, a little-noticed provision of the Act, which expands an 1873 law banning abortion-related speech by criminalizing Internet …

How Have The Procedural Aspects Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 Worked?, Clinton Miller, Charles H. Carrathers Iii, Michael Schwarzwalder, Rod Johnson, Jill Butler

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Good morning. I am Clinton Miller. I'm one of the three members of the Virginia State Corporation Commission and charged with moderating this next panel. I will give you a brief overview before they begin because there may be some people in the room who are not deeply familiar with the procedural aspects of the Telecommunication Act of 1996.

Antitrust: Will It Change The Lives Of Telecommunications Executives?, Deborah V. Ellenberg, Glen O. Robinson, Michael F. Urbanski, James R. Wade

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Good afternoon. This is the last panel of the afternoon. I would like to introduce myself. I'm Deborah Ellenberg, one of the hearing examiners at the State Corporation Commission, and I might add, who has a heightened appreciation for the Virginia Commission's wise decision to handle those arbitrations. I am sure on behalf of Howard, Glenn and myself, we thank you for that decision.

Local Franchising: What Role Will Localities Play In The Regulations Of The Telecommunications Industry? Will They Become Providers Of Telecommunications Service To The Public?, Anthony Gambardella, Dana G. Coltrin, Timothy M. Kaine, David W. Ogburn Jr.

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Good morning, everybody. I am Tony Gambardella with the firm of Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove in Richmond--formerly with the State Corporation Commission. We started yesterday's discussion with the promise of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The main promise was, as of February 8, 1996, Congress had deregulated the telecommunications industry. The problem with the promise is that Congress retained some regulation within the industry. We have regulation at the federal level. We have a huge state role and this morning we are going to add another level--local government. Local governments have a role under the Act. There is some dispute …

Local Exchange Services In The Next Century -- What Still Must Be Done To Bring Us To Where We Want To Be?, Hullihen Williams Moore, Richard L. Cimerman, John J. Langhauser, Philip Mcclelland, Mark J. Mathis

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Our panel is Local Exchange Service in the Next Century--What Still must be Done to Bring Us to Where We Want to Be? We have four excellent panelists to address these questions. I expect the panelists to agree, in part, where we want to be, and they won't spend a whole lot of time about increased service, new technology, lower prices, and all those things. I am sure we'll hear some assurances along those lines, at least from three of the panelists. Most of the time will be spent on what still must be done to get us there. I …

Jaffee V. Redmond: Towards Recognition Of A Federal Counselor-Battered Woman Privilege, Fernando Laguarda, Michael B. Bressman

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Repeal Of The Financial Interest And Syndication Rules: The Demise Of Program Diversity And Television Network Competition?, Marc L. Herskovitz

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

To V Or Not To V - That Is The Regulatory Question: The Role Of The V-Chip In Government Regulation Of Broadcast And Cable Indecency, Marie A. Ryan

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that the current regulatory distinctions between broadcast and cable television in the United States are outdated and should be unified to better protect children from indecent content while respecting adult First Amendment rights. It proposes adopting a consistent "safe harbor" provision for both broadcast and basic cable television, combined with the use of the V-chip technology, as a constitutionally sound and less restrictive means of achieving the government's dual objectives of supporting parental authority and safeguarding children's well-being.

The Invisible Barbecue, Eben Moglen

Faculty Scholarship

Past legislation subsidizing the development of infrastructural technology has borne the mark of political corruption. The subject matter of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 falls within the same category of legislation that has fallen prey to this process in the past. In an effort to discern whether such forces are at work today, Professor Moglen undertakes a critical examination of the metaphors that pervade the current scholarly discourse on the subject of telecommunications law. Terms such as "Superhighway," "Broadcasting," and "Market for Eyeballs" reveal a great deal about the implicit assumptions at work behind the current scholarship and legislation, and …

Deregulatory Takings, Breach Of The Regulatory Contract, And The Telecommunications Act Of 1996, William J. Baumol, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Professors Baumol and Merrill reply to Deregulatory Takings and Breach of the Regulatory Contract, published last year in this Review, which argued that the price incumbents may charge potential competitors for bottleneck facilities under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 should be based not on forward-looking costs but on historical costs. Professors Baumol and Merrill contend that pricing with reference to historical costs would depart from the principles called for by economic analysis for efficient pricing and they further argue that neither the Takings Clause nor the regulatory contract precludes the use of forward-looking costs in setting prices. If a taking …

Foreword: The New Estates, Lance Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Telecommunications Law is under pressure from fast-paced technological advances and changes in the industry structure. As the high-stakes debates plays itself out in federal and state legislatures, agencies and courts, the academic study is struggling to catch up. The author poses provocative questions about the present and future of Telecommunications Law. Of paramount interest are the ill-fitting legal categories that continue to influence crucial determinations about the level of First Amendment protection accorded various communications media, and the reach of Constitutional Takings doctrine that pits incumbent regulated industries against government regulators and up-start competitors looking to shake-up the established order. …

The Telecommunications Revolution: Will The Dust Ever Settle?, Oregon Law Institute, Davis Wright Tremaine, Charles L. Best, Sue E. Weiske, William Covington, Simon J. Ffitch, David C. Olson, Mary Burns Tomlinson

Oregon Law Institute, 1996

Course Materials from the November 15, 1996 Program in Portland

The Communications Decency Act, Jim Exon

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pornography Drives Technology: Why Not To Censor The Internet, Peter Johnson

Federal Communications Law Journal

Historically, the development of new media has been advanced by the creators of pornography. This was evident as communications media evolved from vernacular speech to movable type, to photography, to paperback books, to videotape, to cable and pay-TV, to 900 phone lines, to the French Minitel, and to the Internet. In short, pornography, far from being an evil that the First Amendment must endure, is a positive good that encourages experimentation with new technology. Accordingly, society should not view cyberpornographers as pariahs, rather they should be viewed as explorers who pave the roads for civilization to follow.

The Legislative History Of Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act: Regulating Barbarians On The Information Superhighway, Robert Cannon

Federal Communications Law Journal

Among the most visible and controversial provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been those of an amendment to the larger act known as the Communications Decency Act. This article critically examines the legislative history of this amendment, creating a record of both official and unofficial sources. The article also notes the relevance of the legislative history as demonstrating both the unconstitutionality and the practical inefficacy of the statute.

Creating Local Competition, Joseph Farrell

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Telecommunications Act mandates the opening of local telephone markets to competition. The transition from a noncompetitive market to a competitive market promises to be a difficult journey with many pitfalls to be avoided. This speech expounds upon some of the economic principles that must guide the FCC in implementing the transition, particularly discussing the problem of achieving the goal of universal service in a competitive environment.

This speech was originally presented May 15, 1996 before an open audience at the Federal Communications Commission.

Editor's Note, Randall W. Sifers

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Retransmission Consent: An Examination Of The Retransmission Consent Provision (47 U.S.C. § 325(B)) Of The 1992 Cable Act, Charles Lubinsky

Federal Communications Law Journal

This article examines the legislative and economic history of the retransmission consent provision in the 1992 Cable Act. Retransmission consent provisions in the 1992 Cable Act allow broadcasters to enter into negotiations with cable operators regarding retransmission of their broadcast signal. The 1992 Cable Act requires broadcasters to choose between retransmission consent and must-carry provisions every three years. The first election period ended in October 1996 and a new election period begins January 1, 1997. Retransmission consent has had a noticeable effect on the evolution of cable television broadcasting, although it is arguably unclear whether retransmission consent has addressed the …

Hostile Tender Offers For Companies Holding Licenses Issued By The Federal Communications Commission, Stephen F. Sewell

Federal Communications Law Journal

When a tender offer to acquire a company is made, those making the tender offer will have to overcome a number of regulatory hurdles. The number of hurdles multiply, however, when the offer is hostile and the target company holds licenses issued by the FCC. The article sketches the FCC's response to hostile tender offers for companies holding FCC licenses, specifically discussing the Commission's adoption of procedures in 1985 to address hostile tender offers. While these provisions provided needed clarification, the authority of the FCC to implement these provisions and the effectiveness of them as a matter of policy have …

Masthead Vol.49 No.1 (1996)

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Telecommunications Act Of 1996, Thomas G. Krattenmaker

Federal Communications Law Journal

The author discusses the primary motivating factors behind the 1996 Telecommunications Act, examines how these factors influenced the final law, and critiques the Act by examining whether it is likely to advance public interest goals. Congress designed the Act to address two problems: "technological convergence" and "legal balkanization." The Act attempts to remedy these problems by: (1) tearing down entry barriers so that legal balkanization no longer stands in the path of technological convergence; (2) changing the mandate of the FCC from deciding who should enter the market to monitoring the conditions under which entry takes place in order to …

A Return To Written Consent: A Proposal To The Fcc To Eliminate Slamming, Nicole C. Daniel

Federal Communications Law Journal

The FCC is charged with the task of encouraging competition in the telecommunications industry, yet it must also assure that competition remains free and fair to consumers. Various long-distance providers are taking advantage of their deregulated freedom by engaging in "slamming." The author proposes a more effective form of consumer protection through the return of a short-lived FCC rule which required written customer authorization before the customer's long-distance service could be switched.

Regulating Religious Broadcasting: Some Comparative Reflections, Rodney K. Smith

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Issues In Facsimile Use, Catherine Rubio Kuffner

Media Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Caps -- In Light Of Technological, Economic And Legal Factors, James Alexander Hall Iv

Media Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

The Telecommunications A Ct Of 1996 And Cable Rate Regulation, Matthew C. Bracco

Media Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents And Sponsors, New York Law School

Media Law and Policy

No abstract provided.