"[4] The Fourth Circuit acknowledged that both DBS and cable television operators engage in speech protected by the First Amendment when making channel and content selections.

However, the court endorsed the holding in Turner that preserving "free" broadcast television constituted a content-neutral measure that imposes only incidental burdens on speech sufficient to pass muster using intermediate First Amendment scrutiny.

[7]Congress chose the second because it feared that cherry picking of major network affiliates within local markets would make it more difficult for non-carried stations in those markets to reach their audiences Although the conferees expect that subscribers who receive no broadcast signals at all from their satellite service may install antennas or subscribe to cable service in addition to satellite service, the Conference Committee is less sanguine that subscribers who receive network signals and hundreds of other programming choices from their satellite carrier will undertake such trouble and expense to obtain over-the-air signals from independent broadcast stations[13]Additionally, this 10-day notice period runs afoul of federal law as it is a restriction that unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or use of satellite services.

The satellite and cable regulatory frameworks attempt to balance a number of longstanding, but potentially conflicting, public policy goals—most notably, localised, competitive provision of video services, support for the creative process, and preservation of free over-the-air broadcast television.

But the regulatory framework also recognizes that U.S. households benefit from the receipt of certain distant broadcast signals and includes explicit retransmission and copyright rules for these.

The satellite giants-which combined serve about 30 million pay-TV subscribers-convinced FCC officials that they lacked the channel capacity to provide every eligible station in HD immediately.

Rogers, Circuit Judge: Following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a rule prohibiting restrictions on certain over-the-air reception devices ("OTARD").

[28] The rule invalidated [a]ny restriction, including but not limited to any state or local law or regulation, including zoning, land-use or building regulation, or any private covenant, homeowners' association rule or similar restriction on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property that impairs the installation, maintenance, or use of [antennas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, video programming services via multipoint distribution services, or television broadcast signals]...