Thanks for your insight, Frank.
The courts, particularly appellate courts, typically address disputes created by reasonable confusion & ambiguous interpretation of statutory law based upon a set of facts not contemplated when the law was drafted.
As far as the Portland case is concerned, the issue before the 9th Circuit is whether local franchising authorities have the power to impose the open access condition upon a transfer of control to another cable franchisee. This issue can be addressed narrowly by the Court, based upon the specific set of facts, or it can choose to rule more broadly, in an effort to put some muscle behind its ruling. Sometimes broad rulings are rendered in an effort to quell a matter that is of great importance to public. I think this matter fits that bill as evidenced by the Court's acceptance to hear this matter on an expedited basis.
Typically, most matters are not cut & dry. IMHO, the Court will attempt to carve out some guidelines in this area in an attempt to define the boundaries of Federal regulation & state interests. Unlike the binary nature of the digital world, it far from an "on-off" who does what" type of solution. |
