Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

easement  or  other  property  interest  in  those  channels.”  
Denver Area, 518 U. S., at 828 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).   
  It  does  not  matter  that  a  provision  in  the  franchise 
agreements  between  the  City  and  Time  Warner  allowed 
the City to designate a private entity to operate the public 
access  channels  on  Time  Warner’s  cable  system.    Time 
Warner still owns the cable system.  And MNN still oper-
ates  the  public  access  channels.    To  reiterate,  nothing  in 
the franchise agreements suggests that the City possesses 
any property interest in Time Warner’s cable system, or in 
the public access channels on that system. 
  It  is  true  that  the  City  has  allowed  the  cable  operator, 
Time  Warner,  to  lay  cable  along  public  rights-of-way  in 
the  City.    But  Time  Warner’s  access  to  public  rights-of-
way  does  not  alter  the  state-action  analysis.    For  Time 
Warner,  as  for  other  cable  operators,  access  to  public 
rights-of-way  is  essential  to  lay  cable  and  construct  a 
physical  cable  infrastructure.    See  Turner  Broadcasting 
System,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  512  U. S.  622,  628  (1994).    But  the 
same  is  true  for  utility  providers,  such  as  the  electric 
utility  in  Jackson.    Put  simply,  a  private  entity’s  permis-
sion from government to use public rights-of-way does not 
render that private entity a state actor. 
  Having  said  all  that,  our  point  here  should  not  be  read 
too  broadly.    Under  the  laws  in  certain  States,  including 
New York, a local government may decide to itself operate 
the  public  access  channels  on  a  local  cable  system  (as 
many  local  governments  in  New  York  State  and  around 
the country already do), or could take appropriate steps to 
obtain  a  property  interest  in  the  public  access  channels.  
Depending  on  the  circumstances,  the  First  Amendment 
might  then  constrain  the  local  government’s  operation  of 
the public access channels.  We decide only the case before 
us in light of the record before us.