MediaOne Group, Inc. v. County of Henrico, Virginia, 97 F.Supp. 2d 712 (E.D. Va 2000).
Plaintiffs: County of Henrico
Defenders: MediaOne Group Inc.
Summary
On May 10, 2000, the district court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down Henrico County, Virginia's attempt to impose forced access requirement on the transfer from MediaOne to AT&T. In so doing, the court rested its holding on the fact that the provision of Internet access service over a cable system by a cable operator is a "cable service" under the definitions of the Cable Act, and thus the imposition of a forced access requirement violated Section 621(c) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 541(c).

The disagreement happened when cable operators went to upgrade their conduit as the major high speed Internet link for their subscribers, but local government asserted they had the right to authorize cable franchise based on the Cable Act. The District Court of Eastern Virginia ruled that the Henrico County Board of Supervisors exceeded its authority under state law and violated federal law on cable services when it adopted an ordinance last December forcing AT&T to allow ISPs to access its cable platform.

Federal law has precluded local and state authorities from imposing common carrier regulations, such as so-called "open access" or "forced access" requirements on cable system. From the standpoint of the local authority and ISPs, they think cable providers are gaining too much power as an Internet gatekeeper. From their viewpoint, in order to provide local customers more options and avoid monopoly power, cable operators should open their network for multiple ISPs to connect. Although AT&T has been sharing its system with several unaffiliated ISPs, it still considers that forced access will deter the competition of cable companies and will be found to be illegal.

Court Decision: AT&T wins Henrico cable access ruling.

AT&T v. City of Portland, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Appeal No. 99-35609.
Plaintiffs: AT&T/TCI
Defendants: City of Portland/County of Multnomah
Intervenors: US West/Oregon ISP/OGC Telecom
Summary
The Portland case was started by AT&T's intention to transfer licenses from its affiliate company TCI and the City of Portland mandated that AT&T give other ISPs access to the cable network.

As one of the largest national cable operators, TCI, had previously entered into franchise agreements permitting it to provide cable service. After TCI merged with AT&T, the City of Portland and the County of Multnomah refused to grant AT&T's request for change of control. The two local authorities alleged that they had the right to impose open access conditions on cable and refused to grant the franchise before AT&T fully opened its cable network access to other ISPs. AT&T lost in the District Court because the judge agreed with the City of Portland that it had the authority under the 1984 Cable Act to execute open access condition. But, the 9th Court of Appeals issued its opinion reversing the District Court in the previous ruling. The appeals court concluded that Portland could not condition its approval of the transfer of the TCI cable franchise upon AT&T's granting of open access to its broadband cable facilities to competing ISPs.

In particular, AT&T/TCI alleged that Federal statutes preempt the locally mandated open access requirement. Also, AT&T and TCI alleged that the open access mandate violates the contracts clause, commerce clause, freedom of speech, the Oregon Constitution and the franchise agreements.
Judge Panner in the trial court granted no federal preemption, ruled that neither the City nor the County had violated the first amendment, the contract clause, the commerce clause, the Oregon Constitution, or the franchise agreements. When it came to the Appeal court, the court held the ruling and wrote its own opinion as "…We hold that subsection 541(b)(3) prohibits a franchising authority from regulating cable broadband Internet access, because the transmission of Internet service to subscribers over cable broadband facilities is a telecommunications service under the Communications Act. Therefore, Portland may not condition the transfer of the cable franchise on nondiscriminatory access to AT&T's cable broadband network. We need not reach AT&T's other statutory and constitutional arguments." After that, the Appeals court reversed the decision of District Court.
Court decision: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the District Court.

Broward County v. Comcast Case, U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division, No. 99-6934-CIV Case consolidated with No. 99-6945-CIV
Plaintiffs: Broward County
Defendants: Comcast Cablevision of Broward County, Inc., Advocate Communications, Inc., d/b/a Advanced Cable Communications, MediaOne of Greater Florida, Inc, TCI TKR of South Florida, Inc.
Summary:
Broward county adopted an ordinance on July 13,1999 that required cable companies in Broward County to provide any requesting ISPs access to their broadband cable Internet access facilities, unbundled from the provision of content, on rates, terms and conditions that are at least as favorable as those on which they provide such access to itself. The cable companies that hold cable TV franchises in the covered area promptly filed complaints in the U.S. District Court seeking to have the ordinance overturned.

On November 8, 2000, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the cable operators. It held that the Internet access and content services provided by cable operators are entitled to the same level of protection as a newspaper under the First Amendment. Moreover, the court held that the ordinance in question constitutes content based regulation, and hence, the strict scrutiny test applies. Broward County argued that it regulated the economic activity of providing broadband transport, not the content which the cable operators disseminated over those transport facilities. The Judge reasoned both that the transmission and content are inseparable, and that the First Amendment offers protection to both transmission and content. He also wrote that cable operators control no bottleneck monopoly over access to the Internet because there is an abundance of different sources of content on the Internet.

Court decision:
On April 23, 2001, Broward County settled its open access suit with AT&T. The county agreed to drop the appeal and rescind the ordinance, and the cable operators agreed to abandon attempts to collect attorney's fees.

GTE v. TCI, Comcast, At Home

Plaintiffs: GTE Internetworking Inc. and GTE Intelligent Network Services Inc.
Defendants: Tele-Communications Inc., Comcast, and At Home Corp.,
Summary:
GTE Internetworking Inc. filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on October 25,1999 against the cable company TCI, Comcast, and ISP At Home alleging that bundling broadband data transport service with ISP service violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. GTE's complaint rests on Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It alleges three counts of illegal tying, and two counts of refusals to deal. The complaint seeks damages and a court declaration that (a) the defendants may not require customers to purchase the At Home ISP service in order to obtain high-speed data transport, i.e., customers may obtain high-speed data transport without also purchasing ISP service from At Home; (b) the exclusive contract between the Cable Company Defendants and At Home is unlawful; and (c) the Cable Company Defendants may not agree to refuse to deal with non-affiliated ISPs with respect to the provision of high-speed data transport to residential customers".

Result:This case has not been heard in the court.