## Facts

- Comcast and other cable franchisees provided cable television service and offered high-speed broadband Internet access over their cable systems in Broward County, Florida.
- Broward County enacted Ordinance No. 1999-41 after a competitor requested it.
- The ordinance required any cable franchisee offering broadband Internet access to provide any requesting Internet service provider (ISP) access to the franchisee’s broadband Internet transport services on rates, terms, and conditions at least as favorable as those provided to itself.
- The County asserted the ordinance would increase competition, ensure consumer choice among ISPs, and function as a condition for use of public rights-of-way.
- The cable operators contended they were speakers/press entities and that forced access would compel them to carry others’ speech and interfere with their editorial discretion.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in federal district court.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment limits a local government’s authority to require a cable operator offering high-speed Internet service to provide competitors equal access to its broadband transport service.
2. Whether an ordinance compelling cable broadband providers to provide nondiscriminatory access to unaffiliated ISPs constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech and interference with editorial discretion.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and denied the County’s motion.
- The court held the open-access/forced-access requirement violated the First Amendment.
- The ordinance was declared unconstitutional to the extent it compelled cable broadband providers to provide access to unaffiliated ISPs on nondiscriminatory terms.

## Legal Principles

- Cable operators offering broadband Internet access engage in protected expressive activity; their choices regarding carriage and affiliated services may constitute editorial discretion covered by the First Amendment.
- Government action that compels a private speaker to carry others’ speech is subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny and requires strong justification and appropriate tailoring.
- Competitive and consumer-choice objectives, without a demonstrated necessity for compelled access and without narrow tailoring, do not justify a regulation that directly burdens protected editorial discretion.
- Treating cable broadband providers as common carriers or mere neutral conduits does not avoid First Amendment limits where the service involves protected editorial or content-related choices.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Broward County’s forced-access ordinance because compelling cable broadband providers to provide network access to unaffiliated ISPs impermissibly burdened the providers’ First Amendment rights by mandating carriage of others’ services and constraining editorial discretion.


Comcast Cablevision of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 124 F. Supp. 2d 685 (S.D. Fla. 2000)