The Legislation was passed by the 102nd United States Congress and sponsored by Senator John C. Danforth from Missouri.

As a result, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 had been enacted by the U.S. Congress.

[2] The chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance subcommittee and Democrat of Massachusetts Representative Edward J. Markey said "This is a pro-consumer, pro-competition bill designed to rein in the renegades in the cable industry who are gouging consumers with repeated rate increases".

Firstly, the franchising authority was to establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator.

Lastly, consumer protection laws and customer service requirement agreement standards set by the commission had to be strictly followed.

For example, MSG used the loophole to prevent the competing Verizon FiOS service from carrying its high-definition feed.

The commission argued that the rule was antiquated since satellite and IPTV-based competitors had become capable of sustaining viable competition to cable.

On the other hand, the Judge stated that Cable Act had not specified limits on horizontal integration thus, ordered the Federal Communications Commission to come up with regulations.

The regulation would require a cable operator to construct "reasonable limits" on the number of subscribers they could reach.

Nearing the monetary agreement deadline and retransmission effective date on October 6, 1993,[10] there was an incremental conflict between broadcast stations and cable systems.

The two sides of the story can be described as follows: broadcast stations demanded compensation on a per-subscriber basis from cable operators insisting that its production worth a value.