Communications Act of 1934

“ The lead opinion contends that Title III cannot support standing because the statute provides that " [n] othing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications." ”

“ State of Competitive Market Conditions with respect to Commercial Mobile Radio Services– Section 332 (c) (1) (C) of the Communications Act of 1934 ( [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/332 47 U.S.C. 332 (c) (1) (C) ] ) is amended by striking the first and second sentences. ”

“ TITLE V—OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE Subtitle A—Obscene, Harassing, and Wrongful Utilization of Telecommunications Facilities Sec. 501. Short title. Sec. 502. Obscene or harassing use of telecommunications facilities under the Communications Act of 1934. Sec. 503. Obscene programming on cable television. Sec. 504. Scrambling of cable channels for nonsubscribers. ``Sec. 640. Scrambling of cable channels for nonsubscribers.'' Sec. ”

“ Thirty years of consistent administrative construction left undisturbed by Congress until 1959, when that construction was expressly accepted, reinforce the natural conclusion that the public interest language of the Act authorized the Commission to require licensees to use their stations for discussion of public issues, and that the FCC is free to implement this requirement by reasonable rules and regulations which fall short of abridgment of the freedom of speech and press, and of the censorship proscribed by § 326 of the Act. ”

“ Thus, it is highly significant that although investment in broadcasting stations may be large, a license may not be issued for more than three years; and in deciding whether to renew the license, just as in deciding whether to issue it in the first place, the Commission must judge by the standard of 'public convenience, interest, or necessity.' The Communications Act is not designed primarily as a new code for the adjustment of conflicting private rights through adjudication. ”

“ AT&T contends that regulation under Title II of the Act is mandatory; an agency cannot decline to regulate. It argues that providers of enhanced non-voice service are clearly common carriers and therefore subject to regulation. While AT&T supports the Commission's objective of removing regulatory constraints over competitive enhanced non-voice services and customer premises equipment, it contends that deregulation of communications services requires an amendment of the Communications Act and consent decree relief. ”

“ Plainly it is not the purpose of the Act to protect a licensee against competition but to protect the public. Congress intended to leave competition in the business of broadcasting where it found it, to permit a licensee who was not interfering electrically with other broadcasters to survive or succumb according to his ability to make his programs attractive to the public. ”

“ The petitioner's contentions are that under the Communications Act economic injury to a competitor is not a ground for refusing a broadcasting license and that, since this is so, the respondent was not a person aggrieved or whose interests were adversely affected, by the Commission's action, within the meaning of Section 402 (b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 402 (b) , which authorizes appeals from the Commission's orders. ”

“ Regulation also would disserve the interest of consumers and the goals of the Communications Act. Expansion of regulation to cover or threaten to cover services and vendors that have not been regulated can not be sustained in the absence of an overriding statutory purpose. Even the continuation of regulatory policies when the justification for them no longer exists can not be sustained. ”

“ Nothing in our decisions which have required particular state regulations to yield to the Communications Act suggests such a view of the regulatory field. Cf. Farmers Educational & Co-operative Union, etc. v. WDAY, Inc., supra. Although in Radio Station WOW, Inc., v. Johnson, supra, 326 U.S., at 131-132, 65 S.Ct., at 1482, we decreed the displacement of state law in some respects, we recognized that state regulation in other respects might be constitutional. ”

“ Moreover, the status of mobile telephone equipment is currently being examined in our Cellular Mobile Radio proceeding CC Docket No. 79-318, FCC 79-774, released January 8, 1980. Our action here in deregulating CPE under Title II is not intended to alter in any way the requirements imposed for the licensing of radio equipment under Title III of the Act, even though it may be separated from the carrier's provision of basic services. This decision applies to CPE provided in the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. ”

“ The growing complexity of our economy induced the Congress to place regulation of businesses like communication in specialized agencies with broad powers. Courts are slow to interfere with their conclusions when reconcilable with statutory directions. [13] We think the Multiple Ownership Rules, as adopted, are reconcilable with the Communications Act as a whole. An applicant files his application with knowledge of the Commission's attitude toward concentration of control. ”

“ We are faced with the reality that technology and consumer demand have combined to so overrun the definitions and regulatory scheme of the First Computer Inquiry that today no comparable, minimally enduring line of demarcation can be drawn. In enhanced services, communications and data processing technologies have become intertwined so thoroughly as to produce a form different from any explicitly recognized in the Communications Act. ”

“ Merely to assume that competition is bound to be of advantage, in an industry so regulated and so largely closed as is this one, is not enough.
RCAC asks us to uphold the Court of Appeals decision on another ground, that the grant of authorization to Mackay would violate § 314 of the Communications Act, which forbids common ownership, control or operation of radio and cable in international communication whose purpose or effect may be substantially to lessen competition, restrain commerce or unlawfully to create a monopoly. We cannot agree. ”

“ Section 315 now reads:↑ According to the record, Hargis asserted that his broadcast included the following statement:↑ The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition for want of a reviewable order, later reversing itself en banc upon argument by the Government that the FCC rule used here, which permits it to issue 'a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty,' 47 CFR § 1.2, was in fact justified by the Administrative Procedure Act. ”

“ Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act provides that no person who, as an employe, has to do with the sending or receiving of any interstate communication by wire shall divulge or publish it or its substance to anyone other than the addressee or his authorized representative or to authorized fellow employes, save in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or on demand of other lawful authority ”

“ ABSENCE OF STANDARDS.— The absence of technical requirements or standards for implementing the assistance capability requirements of section 103 shall not— (A) preclude a telecommunications carrier, manufacturer, or telecommunications support services provider from deploying a technology or service; or (B) relieve a carrier, manufacturer, or telecommunications support services provider of the obligations imposed by section 103 or 106, as applicable. ”

“ On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in § 326, which forbids FCC interference with 'the right of free speech by means of radio communication.' Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. ”

“ If 100 persons want broadcast licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same 'right' to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum. ”

“ One station might dominate the other with the power of its signal. But the community could be deprived of good radio service in ways less crude. One man, financially and technically qualified, might apply for and obtain the licenses of both stations and present a single service over the two stations, thus wasting a frequency otherwise available to the area. The language of the Act does not withdraw such a situation from the licensing and regulatory powers of the Commission, and there is no evidence that Congress did not mean its broad language to carry the authority it expresses. ”

“ Fraudulent Alteration of Commercial Mobile Radio Instruments. (a) OFFENSE.— Section 1029 (a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking ``or ́ ́ at the end of paragraph (3) ; and (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraphs:
`` (5) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a telecommunications instrument that has been modified or altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services ”

“ CONSULTATION.— A telecommunications carrier shall consult, as necessary, in a timely fashion with manufacturers of its telecommunications transmission and switching equipment and its providers of telecommunications support services for the purpose of ensuring that current and planned equipment, facilities, and services comply with the capability requirements of section 103 and the capacity requirements identified by the Attorney General under section 104. ”