contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person st, 988 F.Supp. 107, 110 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (determining that both provisions applied when defendant illegally intercepted and broadcast a pay-per-view boxing event); Home Box Office v. Gee-Co, Inc., 838 F.Supp. 436, 439 (E.D.Mo.1993) (finding that defendant’s unauthorized interception of cable communications services violated Section 553 and its unauthorized display of a satellite broadcast boxing event violated Section 605, where both violations were committed through the use of a satellite receiver with a “pirate chip” installed); but see United States v. Norris, 88 F.3d 462, 468-69 (7th Cir.1996) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 934, at 83-84, reprinted in 84 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4720-21) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit has not yet addressed this
holding that unauthorized interception of cable television programming traveling through the air is governed by section 605 while the unauthorized interception of cable television programming through a cable network is governed by section 553 holding that section 20 claims are governed by section 1658b bjecause section 20 merely creates a derivative liability for violations of other sections of the act holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding claim that an assessment is made in violation of section 193155 is an action to contest an assessment and is governed by section 1941712 recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law