Courier Post Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

104 F.2d 213, 70 App. D.C. 80, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4109
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1939
Docket7091
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 104 F.2d 213 (Courier Post Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Courier Post Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 104 F.2d 213, 70 App. D.C. 80, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4109 (D.C. Cir. 1939).

Opinion

VINSON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision by the Federal Communications Commission, denying the application of appellant, The Courier Post Publishing Company, a Missouri corporation, for a permit to construct a new radio broadcasting station at Hannibal, Missouri, to operate on a frequency of 1310 kcs. with power of 250 watts daytime and 100 watts nighttime.

The applications of appellant and the Hannibal Broadcasting Company, for somewhat similar facilities, were heard before an examiner; the intervener, The .Illinois Broadcasting Corporation, operating station WTAD, at Quincy, Ill., participating. The examiner recommended that the application of the Hannibal Broadcasting Company be denied, and that the application of the appellant be granted with power of 100 watts, unlimited time. Oral argument was had before the Commission, which entered its final order denying both applications. The Courier Post Publishing Company is here on appeal.

The statute defining the duty of the Commission in issuing radio construction permits is section 307, Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 307, which provides, in part as follows:

“(a) The Commission, if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this chapter, shall grant to any applicant therefor a station license provided for by this chapter. ■
“(b) In considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof, when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.”

Section 402(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. 402(e), provides in part: “That the review by the court shall be limited to questions of law and that findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or capricious.”

The facts upon which the Commission based its decision include the following: Hannibal has a population of 22,761 (1930 census); it is the seventh city in Missouri in size and fourth in industrial importance. There are 63 factories with annual output of more than $21,000,000; one employing some 3300 persons; another normally more than 500 persons. It has 34 wholesale and 333 retail establishments. Hannibal' La Grange College is located there. Enrollment of public schools exceeds 4,200; three parochial schools have a registration of about 600. There are 39 churches. There are three newspapers, a daily published by the appellant with a circulation in excess of 7,500, principally within a radius of fifty miles. The other two are weeklies, one wholly devoted to labor union matters and the other entirely to negroes'. 27 weekly papers are published in surrounding towns, but are not substantial competitors with the appellant’s paper in circulation or advertising. The total assets of appellant, as of October 31, 1936, were $176,840, exclusive of good will and circulation structure, and its liabilities were $3,355. At least $80,000 is spent annually in Hannibal on advertising, of which $60,000 to $70,000 is of local origin. Three banks are located there with combined deposits of $5,844,000 and six building and loan associations with resources of more than $4,000,000. It is served with three trunk line railroads, two U. S. highways, and water transportation on the Mississippi River. It is the center of a rural trading area having a population of 100.000, the largest town within that area having a population of less than 4,000. We shall set *215 forth hereinafter the facts relating to radio service afforded Hannibal and vicinity.

The Commission in denying appellant’s application found that “applicant is legally, technically, financially, and otherwise qualified as an applicant for a construction permit to erect a local broadcast station of the kind and class applied for herein”; that “on the question of public need for the service which these applicants propose to render, we note that Hannibal now receives primary broadcast service from three stations one of which broadcasts programs originated by residents of Hannibal, and that it also receives secondary service from a number of stations. We are, therefore, unable to find, upon the record before us, that a public need of such nature exists in Hannibal for a local broadcast station as would justify a grant of * * * [appellant’s] application^]”: and, that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will not be served by granting appellant’s application. Whereupon, it entered its final order denying it.

The burden of proof is upon the appellant to show that the granting of its application would serve public convenience, interest or necessity. 1 Though it sustains the burden, the order of the Commission denying the application must not be disturbed unless there be error in law. The Commission’s findings of fact upon which the order rests are conclusive, if supported by substantial evidence, unless it clearly appears that such findings are arbitrary or capricious. 2

Appellant assigns as error the finding that there is not a public need in Hannibal for a local broadcasting station. It is the contention of the Commission that the appellant has failed to show such need for a local broadcasting station as would justify the granting of its application, for the reason that (1) Hannibal receives satisfactory programs from other stations, (a) clear channel net-work stations, and (b) a regional station, WTAD, operating from Quincy; and (2) there is no demand shown by the merchants of Hannibal for this service. Appellant’s second assignment is that the Commission erred in refusing to apply the same standards as adopted and applied in similar cases theretofore decided by it.

By reason of its regulatory and supervisory functions under the Act (48 Stat. 1064,47 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.), the Commission has provided for four classes of radio stations. These are clear channel, high power regional, regional, and local. Appellant applied for, and predicated its entire case upon the need of, a local station, as distinguished from any other type of station. The regulations of the Commission define a local station to be one licensed to operate with other stations assigned to the same frequency designated for such use, and with an authorized power of 100 watts at night and not more than 250 watts during daytime. The Commission has defined a local station to be one which will serve “to present programs of local interest to the residents of that community; to utilize and develop local entertainment talent which the record indicates is available; to serve local, religious, educational, civic, patriotic, and other organizations; to broadcast local news; and .to generally provide a means of local public expression and a local broadcast service to listeners in that area.” Okmulgee Broadcasting Corporation, 4 F.C.C. 302. Appellant’s application was not concerned with existing clear channel, high power regional, or regional programs, or the clarity of reception, but upon a local need for a local station.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Battat v. Comm'r
148 T.C. No. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Almon, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Commission
696 P.2d 1210 (Utah Supreme Court, 1985)
Reaveley v. Public Service Commission
436 P.2d 797 (Utah Supreme Court, 1968)
Harrell v. Federal Communications Commission
267 F.2d 629 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Butler Oak Tavern v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control
120 A.2d 24 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F.2d 213, 70 App. D.C. 80, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courier-post-pub-co-v-federal-communications-commission-cadc-1939.