AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Argued | November 1, 1999 |
| Decided | June 22, 2000 |
| Citation | 216 F.3d 871 |
| Holding | |
| Federal Communications Commission regulations on cable broadband Internet access supersede local regulations, because the Commission has nationwide authority over the provision of telecommunications networks. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Sidney R. Thomas, Edward Leavy, Ferdinand Fernandez |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sidney R. Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Commerce Clause, Contract Clause, Telecommunications Act of 1996 | |
AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir., 2000),[1] was a ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was an important early precedent on the regulation of local cable broadband networks, with the court finding that Federal Communications Commission regulations supersede those of local authorities.The ruling has also been cited as a precedent in network neutrality disputes.
In the late 1990s, TCI was the monopoly provider of cable broadband Internet service in Portland, Oregon and the surrounding Multnomah County. In 1998, TCI merged with AT&T, and that company's "@Home" service would become the only cable broadband option for the area's residents. AT&T would then exercise control of the physical network infrastructure. Later that year, the city and county initially approved the transfer of the area's cable franchise agreement to AT&T, with the stipulation that the company provide open access to its physical network. This would require non-discriminatory access by potential competitors to the physical network, so they could provide Internet service without building their own physical infrastructures.[1]
AT&T rejected the open access provision, after which the city and county denied transfer of the cable franchise. The company filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, arguing that the city and county had overstepped their authority by adding extra conditions to the franchise agreement.[2]
District court proceedings
At the Oregon district court, AT&T claimed that the Portland/Multnomah County ordinance violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it burdened interstate commerce, and the Contract Clause of the Constitution which prohibited state intervention in contracts. AT&T also claimed that the ordinance violated the First Amendment right to free speech because it would require the company to carry network content of which it may not approve.[2]
The district court rejected all of AT&T's arguments, ruling that the Commerce Clause was not relevant for a service that was only available in the Portland area (it did not cross state lines); the Contract Clause had not been violated because it was common practice for local governments to grant cable franchises, and conditions could be added if they did not significantly impact the contractual relationship. Meanwhile, the First Amendment did not apply because the ordinance was a strictly economic regulation.[2]
AT&T appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.