 the proper takings analysis applied to com- pelled access to communications networks, the Court in Loretto V. Teleprompter 7 See, e.g., Loretto V. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 423 N.E.2d 320, 331-34 (N.Y. 1981), rev'd, 458 U.S. 419 (1982). Networks in Telecommunications Manhattan CATV Corp. firmly distinguished between its physical and regulatory takings jurisprudence. 2. Loretto and the Distinction between Physical and Regulatory Takings The issue in Loretto concerned cable operators' ability to string coaxial cables on New York apartment buildings for the provision of cable television services. Such cables served two distinct purposes. First, they allowed cable operators to provide service to each building's tenants. Second, even if no tenant in a particular building subscribed to cable, the cable operator often needed to string a "crossover" line in order to service customers in adjacent buildings. In 1970, the previous owner of the plaintiff's building allowed the local cable operator to install a thirty- five-foot crossover line that was less than one-half inch in diameter and that ran eighteen inches above the building's roof. The operator also attached directional taps, measuring four inches per side, on the front and rear of the roof and two silver boxes, measuring 18 by 12 by 6 inches, along the roof cables. When the building's tenants subscribed to the service, the cable operator installed another cable running down the front of the building to the first floor. The cable operator originally compensated building owners for such access by paying them a standard rate of five percent of the gross revenues realized from the property. In 1973, however, the State of New York enacted a statute requiring that landlords permit cable operators to install equipment on their property and providing that a state agency would set the rate of compensation. The agency eventually set the compensation at a one-time rate of one dollar. The plaintiff, the owner of a Manhattan apartment building, challenged the statute