This note first argues that the court correctly applied the least scrutinizing first amendment test to the facts of the case and concluded its inquiry after the rules failed that test. Second, this note argues that the FCC, while once on the correct regulatory path regarding cable, erred by not studying the potential impact of cable television on a case by case basis as the FCC had decided to do with competing broadcasters in Carroll Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC. Third, this note concludes that the Quincy case will benefit cable operators financially and will provide proper protection of cable operators' right of free speech.
Robert B. Hobbs Jr., Cable TV's "Must Carry" Rules: The Most Restrictive Alternative - Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 8 Campbell L. Rev. 339 (1986).