47 U.S.C. § 533 — Ownership restrictions

(a) Cable operator holding license for multichannel distribution or offering satellite service. A cable operator cannot hold a license for multichannel multipoint distribution service, and cannot offer satellite master antenna television service separately from its franchised cable service, in any part of the area its cable system serves. The Commission (1) must waive this rule for multichannel multipoint distribution services and satellite master antenna television services that a cable operator already owned as of October 5, 1992; (2) may waive it further, as far as needed to make sure all major parts of a franchise area can get video programming; and (3) cannot apply this rule to a cable operator in an area where the operator faces "effective competition" as defined under section 543(l) of this title. (b) Repealed. This subsection was repealed by Public Law 104–104, in 1996. (c) Promulgation of rules. The Commission may write rules about who can own or control cable systems when that person also owns or controls other mass-communications media serving the same community. (d) Regulation of ownership by States or franchising authorities. A state or franchising authority cannot ban someone from owning or controlling a cable system just because that person also owns or controls other mass-communications media. But a state or franchising authority can still ban someone from owning a cable system in its area (1) because that person already owns or controls another cable system there, or (2) if the state or authority decides that letting them acquire the system would eliminate or reduce competition in delivering cable service there. (e) Holding of ownership interests or exercise of editorial control by States or franchising authorities. (1) A state or franchising authority may own part of a cable system, subject to paragraph (2). (2) But if a state or franchising authority owns part of a cable system, it cannot control the content of any cable service on that system — except programming on channels set aside for education or government use — unless that control is exercised through a separate entity, not the franchising authority itself. (f) Enhancement of effective competition. (1) To boost competition, within one year of October 5, 1992, the Commission had to hold a proceeding to (A) set reasonable limits on how many cable subscribers one person can reach through cable systems they own or have a real interest in; (B) set reasonable limits on how many channels on a system one video programmer, if the cable operator has an interest in it, can occupy; and (C) consider whether to limit how much multichannel video distributors can also create or produce video programming themselves. (2) In writing these rules, the Commission had to, among other goals, (A) make sure no cable operator or group of operators can unfairly block the flow of programming to consumers; (B) make sure operators tied to programmers don't favor those programmers in choosing what to carry, or unreasonably block other programmers' access; (C) account for the cable industry's market structure and ownership patterns; (D) account for benefits that might come from more ownership or control; (E) keep the rules responsive to a changing communications market; (F) not bar operators from serving rural areas that had no service before; and (G) not block the growth of diverse, high-quality video programming. (g) Combination of interests under prior law. This section does not undo any combination of interests a person already held on July 1, 1984, as long as holding those interests was legal under federal or state law at that time. (h) "Media of mass communications" defined. For this section, "media of mass communications" means the same thing it means under section 309(i)(3)(C)(i) of this title.