more than just the unauthorized interception of signals.” That’s Entertainment v. Centel Videopath, No. 93-CV-1471, 1993 WL 13011588, at *7 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 9, 1993) see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. That Place, LLC, No. 11-CV-931, 2012 WL 2525653, at *3 (E.D.Wis. June 29, 2012) (“While the second and fourth sentences of § 605(a) require both an unauthorized ‘interception’ and a divulgence of the transmission in order to establish liability under the Act, the first and third sentences of § 605(a) do not similarly require an ‘interception’ and simply proscribe the unauthorized divulgence or use of communications which have been ‘received’ legally for certain purposes.”); J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. 4326 Kurz, Ltd., No. 07-CV-3850, 2009 WL 1886124, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Williams, 1
holding that section 605a prohibits divulging transmission of a satellite communication to unauthorized persons even after lawfully receiving the communication holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that an initial communication within the meaning of the fdcpa includes the initiation of a lawsuit holding that by using a very specific meaning of the words oral communication the legislature limited the reach of a statutory suppression remedy holding that pleadings are initial communication under fdcpa