Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

07/28/55 Federal Broadcasting v. Federal Communications

July 28, 1955

FEDERAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE, WHEC, INC., INTERVENOR, VETERANS BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., INTERVENOR. 1955.CDC.118



Before PRETTYMAN, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

Date Decided: July 28, 1955.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case involves a protest against the grant of a television permit (license) for Channel 10 in Rochester, New York, to the intervenors WHEC, Inc. and Veterans Broadcasting Co., Inc. (Veterans). The principal questions raised are whether the Commission's accelerated procedures were valid, and whether it acted properly in dismissing a protest for lack of specificity.

In 1952 WHEC and Veterans filed mutually-exclusive applications for the Channel 10 television license in Rochester. These applications were due to be heard on a competitive basis. In early March of 1953, however, WHEC and Veterans entered into a share-time agreement for the use of Channel 10 and thus resolved the conflict between their applications. On March 4 and 5, 1953, respectively, they amended their applications accordingly. On March 9, 1953, the Commission accepted the amendments for filing and gave public notice of its action. At its next meeting on March 11, 1953, the Commission granted intervenors the Channel 10 television permit for share-time operation.

Federal Broadcasting System, Inc. (Federal), protestant before the Commission and appellant here, is the licensee of standard broadcasting station WSAY in Rochester, New York. At the time when the above-described proceedings in regard to the Rochester Channel 10 television license took place, it was not an applicant for that license. Appellant tells us that it had intended to file an application for the Channel 10 license, but had been prevented from completing its technical data by difficulty in obtaining a suitable antenna site. Six days after the Commission's grant to the intervenors, Federal filed its application for Channel 10. Simultaneously it filed a protest, under Section 309(c) of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c), against the grant to intervenors.

Acting on Federal's protest the Commission suspended the intervenors' permit and set Federal's protest for hearing on issues to be framed by subsequent order. The intervenors objected to the protest on the ground that Federal was not a "party in interest" and had not specified "with particularity the facts, matters and things relied upon." On July 27, 1953, the Commission reversed itself and dismissed the protest on the latter ground. It also returned Federal's application for a television license on Channel 10.

On August 18, 1953, Federal filed a petition for reconsideration, relying on newly-found facts relative to the alleged invalidity of the Commission proceedings of March 11, 1953.

On May 3, 1954, Federal's petition for reconsideration was denied both on the ground that the Commission could not act on facts presented after the expiration of the 30-day period allowed for filing a protest under 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c), and that the facts set forth in Federal's petition for reconsideration, if considered on the merits, did not constitute a reason for reinstating Federal's protest. This appeal followed. I.

The primary issue before us is, of course, whether the Commission erred in its treatment of Federal's protest against the grant made.

Section 309(c), under which the protest was filed, was added to the Act by the 1952 revisions. It was an expression of Congressional desire to guarantee interested parties an opportunity to be heard where Commission action was taken without a prior opportunity for voicing opposition. This was an innovation. However, in thus opening the door to protestants, Congress required that the protest "shall specify with particularity the facts, matters, and things relied upon, but shall not include issues or allegations phrased generally." 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c). It was this requirement that the Commission held was not satisfied by Federal's protest. *fn1

It is clear from a reading of the statute and its history that Congress sought to require one protesting a unilateral grant of a license by the Commission to show in some detail the factual basis of his grievances. *fn2 Generalized objections are obviously insufficient under the statute without some specification of events and circumstances. But neither are we to measure the requirement of Section 309(c) by the technicalities of pleading formerly applicable in civil litigation. What is required is merely an articulated statement of some fact or situation *fn3 which would tend to show, if established at a hearing, that the grant of the license contravened public interest, convenicence and necessity, or that the licensee was technically or financially unqualified, contrary to the Commission's initial finding.

Read in that light it seems clear to us that appellant's protest raises at least one issue with sufficient particularity to require that a hearing on the protest be granted. That is the issue of threatened monopoly control of mass media of communications in the Rochester area. The protest in that regard avers that the intervenor WHEC is a subsidiary of the Gannett Newspaper chain which has a monopoly of the daily newspapers in the City of Rochester, owns other standard broadcasting stations both in Rochester and elsewhere and controls numerous newspapers outside Rochester. A list of Gannett enterprises is set forth as part of the protest, showing the extent of the Gannett radio and newspaper chain in upstate New York, which includes the Rochester area. *fn4 Appellant further asserts that the Gannett newspapers, "obviously" because of their ownership of Station WHEC, have treated appellant's Station WSAY unfairly in regard to publicity coverage of the latter's radio programs and thus have caused it financial loss beyond ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.