The Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power Company et al., 2001 revolved around the interpretation of Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 which allows cable television companies to attach their cables to utility poles owned by power and telephone companies for a regulated fee. The issue was whether this provision also applied to attachments by wireless telecommunications providers and non-cable services provided by cable television companies such as internet access. The court ruled in favor of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, stating that both wireless service providers and non-cable services offered by cable TV firms were covered under section 224's pole attachment provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power Company et al., Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not have authority to regulate rental rates charged by utility companies for pole attachments used by cable television systems under Section 224 of the Communications Act. He contended that this section only applied to "cable television services" and not other telecommunications services provided over cable facilities such as internet or phone service. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of “pole attachment” which included both physical connections and associated rental fees, arguing it was too broad an interpretation from a linguistic point of view. In his perspective, FCC’s regulation would lead to unfair results where utilities could be forced into below-cost rentals causing potential harm to consumers in terms of higher electricity prices or reduced electrical system reliability.