Great Lakes Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, the Community Broadcasting Company, Intervenor

D.C. Circuit

Great Lakes Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, the Community Broadcasting Company, Intervenor

289 F.2d 754, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3305

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1960

Docket14638_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 F.2d 754 (Great Lakes Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, the Community Broadcasting Company, Intervenor) 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

Great Lakes Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, the Community Broadcasting Company, Intervenor, 289 F.2d 754, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3305 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Communications Commission which, after a comparative hearing on mutually exclusive applications for a television station construction permit in Toledo, Ohio, granted the application of the Community Broadcasting Company and denied that of appellant, Great Lakes Broadcasting Company. Appellant contends that, although required, the Commission failed to make a detailed comparison of the applicants’ specific program proposals. The Commission concedes that it made no such comparison, but it urges that none is necessary here. The Commission asserts that its function with respect to program proposals is to ascertain whether the applicants’ over-all program balance and structure meet the needs of the service area and whether the applicants have made an effort to determine these needs, and that it is required to make a detailed comparison of individual programs only in cases where significant differences in entire fields of programming are made to appear. 1 We cannot say that this view of the Commission’s role is unreasonable or otherwise precluded by the Act. 2

*756 Here the Commission found, upon substantial evidence, that no significant differences existed between the applicants’ program proposals. Hence we agree that further detailed comparison of program content was unnecessary.

Appellant’s other contentions also provide no basis for disturbing the Commission’s action.

Affirmed.

1

. Of course, if it should appear to the Commission that the program proposals of no applicant meet the needs of the service area and that, consequently, the award of a license would not be in the public interest, the Commission may not grant a license to any of the applicants. Clarksburg Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1955, 96 U.S.App. D.C. 211, 225 F.2d 511; Mansfield Journal Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 180 F.2d 28. Cf. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 108 U.S. App.D.C. 409, 283 F.2d 204; City of Pittsburgh v. Federal Power Comm., 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 123 note 28, 237 F.2d 741, 751 note 28.

2

. Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934), as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1958), 47 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Communications Commission which, after a comparative hearing on mutually exclusive applications for a television station construction permit in Toledo, Ohio, granted the application of the Community Broadcasting Company and denied that of appellant, Great Lakes Broadcasting Company. Appellant contends that, although required, the Commission failed to make a detailed comparison of the applicants’ specific program proposals. The Commission concedes that it made no such comparison, but it urges that none is necessary here. The Commission asserts that its function with respect to program proposals is to ascertain whether the applicants’ over-all program balance and structure meet the needs of the service area and whether the applicants have made an effort to determine these needs, and that it is required to make a detailed comparison of individual programs only in cases where significant differences in entire fields of programming are made to appear. 1 We cannot say that this view of the Commission’s role is unreasonable or otherwise precluded by the Act. 2

*756 Here the Commission found, upon substantial evidence, that no significant differences existed between the applicants’ program proposals. Hence we agree that further detailed comparison of program content was unnecessary.

Appellant’s other contentions also provide no basis for disturbing the Commission’s action.

Affirmed.

1

. Of course, if it should appear to the Commission that the program proposals of no applicant meet the needs of the service area and that, consequently, the award of a license would not be in the public interest, the Commission may not grant a license to any of the applicants. Clarksburg Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1955, 96 U.S.App. D.C. 211, 225 F.2d 511; Mansfield Journal Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 180 F.2d 28. Cf. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 108 U.S. App.D.C. 409, 283 F.2d 204; City of Pittsburgh v. Federal Power Comm., 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 123 note 28, 237 F.2d 741, 751 note 28.

2

. Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934), as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1958), 47 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 F.2d 754, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 88, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-lakes-broadcasting-company-v-federal-communications-commission-the-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack