查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 美國有線電視與電信事業跨業經營禁令違憲審查之分析=The Study of Cable/Telco Cross-Ownership Ban's Constitutionality in the U.S. |
---|---|
作 者 | 張美滿; 陳百齡; | 書刊名 | 美歐季刊 |
卷 期 | 13:1=133 民88.春 |
頁 次 | 頁63-83 |
分類號 | 557.711 |
關鍵詞 | 有線電視管制; 言論自由; 違憲審查; 電訊傳播政策; 跨業經營禁令; Cable regulation; Cable/telco; Cross-ownership ban; Free expression; Intermediate level scrutiny; Telecommunications policy; Unconstitutionality; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文研究焦點是美國有線電視與電信事業跨業經營禁令的合憲性問題。此禁令源 起於一九七0年, 由聯邦傳播委員會( FCC )所頒行,並被國會編入「一九八四年線纜傳 播政策法」( The Cable communications Policy Act of 1984 )第 613 條。當時制訂此 法之目的,乃是為了防範獨占的區域性電話公司,遂行不公平競爭行為,而防礙初生有線電 視產業的發展。 禁令在一九九0年以後,引發爭議的違憲議題,數個區域性電話公司分別向聯邦法院提出控 訴,控告此禁令侵害他們的言論自由權。結果這長達二十六年的跨業經營禁令終被判決違憲 ,修正後的「一九九六年電訊傳播法」( Telecommunications Act of 1996 )因而廢除此 跨業經營禁令,開放有線電視與電信事業可以互相跨業競爭。 |
英文摘要 | The goal of this article is to analyze the constitutionality of cabletelephone cross-ownership ban. In 1970, when the cable industry was in its infancy, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the ban (which was codified in Section 613 (b) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, and was repealed in Section 302(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) that prohibited all telcos from providing video programming to subscribers in their respective local service area, either directly or indirectly through an affiliate. As far as the Commission's concern, powerful local telephone companies may cause anticompetitive problems, such as discriminatory pole attachment and cross-subsidization. Eventually, local telephone companies, through those predatory behaviors, would achieve a monopoly place in the video programming market. The ban prohibited telephone companies, and their affiliates, from providing video programming to subscribers within their service areas. Some local telephone companies individually brought suits challenging the constitutionality of the corss-ownership ban. The courts examined the government's justifications for the statute, and found that the prohibition neither can be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, nor can allow alternative channels for communication. So the ban fails the concerning prong because it is more extensive than necessary to achieve the stated interest. It cannot withstand the lenient threshold of the intermediate level scrutiny standard proffered by FCC and the Congress. For the foregoing reasons, the cable/telco cross-ownership ban is facially unconstitutional as a violation of local telephone companies' First Amendment rights to free expression. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。