In many regions, rather than running cable service underground, cable wires are strung on telephone poles much as electrical and telephone wires are. Under FCC regulation, the price that the owners of the telephone poles could charge for the service of holding up the cables was limited. Under an appeals court ruling issued in 2000, the limit was lifted, and in some regions the amount charged by the telephone companies increased by 7 times.
Politically, there are two basic arguments about this: (a) that the phone companies own the wires and should be able to charge whatever they want for the use of their property; (b) that the telephone poles are a local monopoly and should be regulated (and that there is an obvious conflict of interest in terms of companies charging fair prices to allow competitors to use their infrastructure).
Legally, the case was based on two things: the Pole Attachments Act of 1978, in which Congress required that the FCC "Regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments", and which defined a pole attachment as "any attachment by a cable television system to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by a utility" and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the term to include "any attachment by a ... provider of telecommunications service." The FCC had argued that high-speed internet attachments were not telecommunications services (they evidently have not classified internet services in general and are open to reinterpreting that decision), but that they were put up by cable companies and so fell under the purview of the law; Gulf Power Company had argued that the law was meant only to apply to attachments used to provide cable television, regardless of whether they were put up by an organization that provides cable television. The Court sided with the FCC.
In a similar issue in the same case, the Gulf Power Company argued that a wireless device attached to a telephone pole was exempt from the rule because the definition of "utility" specified that a utility is an entity whose infrastructure is used in part for wire communications. How that is relevant the Court found difficult to see, as the definition in question determines whose poles are covered rather than which attachments. The court sided instead with the FCC, which argued that wireless devices constitute a telecommunications service. and indicated that the FCC may regulate the rates charged for those attachments as well.
The decision was nearly unanimous. Justice O'Connor did not participate, and there was no dissent. Justices Thomas and Souter agreed with the key holding --- that the FCC has the authority to regulate the rates in question --- but disagreed with the reinstatement of their rates, arguing that while they believed the FCC is correct, they should be required to prove it more carefully --- in essence, they seem to be saying, the FCC is correct, but has failed to prove it, and should be required to do so before their regulations are reinstated. The other 6 rejected this argument, and reinstated the rates as they had existed before being overturned by the Appeals Court in 2000.