Home Box Office, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
567 F.2d 9 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to regulate cable television is limited to that which is 'reasonably ancillary' to its broadcast responsibilities, and it cannot promulgate rules restricting cablecast content based on speculative harms. Such rules, which implicate the First Amendment and are not justified by spectrum scarcity, must be narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest and developed through a public process free from undisclosed ex parte communications.
Facts:
- Cable television began in the 1940s to improve reception of broadcast signals, but by the 1970s, systems developed the capacity for 'cablecasting'—originating their own programming.
- Companies like Home Box Office, Inc. began offering premium programming, such as recent feature films and sports, to subscribers for a separate monthly fee.
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became concerned that this 'pay cable' model would 'siphon' popular content away from free, advertiser-supported broadcast television.
- The FCC theorized that siphoning would harm the public, particularly those without access to or unable to afford cable, by making popular content available only on a subscription basis.
- The FCC enacted a series of 'anti-siphoning' rules restricting the types of feature films (based on age and prior broadcast) and sports events (based on prior broadcast) that pay cable services could show.
- The rules also prohibited pay cable channels from carrying commercial advertisements and limited the total programming hours for films and sports to 90%.
- During the FCC's rulemaking process, representatives from the broadcast, cable, and motion picture industries engaged in numerous private, off-the-record (ex parte) meetings with FCC commissioners and staff to argue the merits of the proposed rules.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a series of rulemaking proceedings to develop 'anti-siphoning' rules for pay cable television.
- The FCC issued a First Report and Order adopting rules that restricted feature film and sports programming on pay cable channels.
- The FCC also issued subsequent orders on reconsideration and a Second Report and Order which made minor modifications to the rules.
- Home Box Office, Inc., along with other cable entities, program producers, and the U.S. Department of Justice, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for review of the FCC's orders.
- The various petitions for review were consolidated for argument and decision before the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 'pay cable' rules, which restrict the feature films and sports events that cablecasters can offer for a fee, exceed the FCC's statutory authority, violate the First Amendment, and were they promulgated in a procedurally improper manner due to undisclosed ex parte communications?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The FCC's pay cable regulations exceed its statutory authority, violate the First Amendment, and were adopted in a procedurally flawed manner. First, the Commission's authority over cable television is limited to that which is 'reasonably ancillary' to its regulation of broadcast television. The FCC failed to present any concrete evidence that 'siphoning' was a real or imminent threat, relying instead on speculation, and thus did not establish a jurisdictional basis for the rules. Second, the physical scarcity rationale that permits broader regulation of broadcasting does not apply to cable television's multi-channel environment. The rules are a significant restraint on protected speech and fail the constitutional standard set forth in United States v. O'Brien because the asserted government interest is not supported by evidence and the rules are overbroad and not narrowly tailored. Finally, the rulemaking was procedurally invalid due to numerous undisclosed ex parte communications between interested parties and FCC decision-makers. In rulemakings that resolve 'conflicting private claims to a valuable privilege,' such secret contacts violate fundamental norms of fairness and due process, and fatally undermine the integrity of the administrative record necessary for judicial review.
Concurring - Weigel, District Judge
Yes. I concur fully but write to emphasize that the FCC lacks any power to control the content of programs originating with cablecasters. Such programming does not involve the use of broadcast frequencies, and regulating its content goes 'well beyond the outer limits' of the Commission's statutory authority. Any such power, fraught with potential for First Amendment violations, should not be sanctioned by implication.
Concurring - MacKinnon, Circuit Judge
Yes. I concur but write to clarify that the court's strict prohibition on ex parte contacts should be limited to the specific type of informal rulemaking present here. The broad prohibition is appropriate for proceedings that involve 'competing private claims to a valuable privilege' and adjudicate the rights of competing business interests. However, the majority's language should not be read to apply to the entire universe of informal rulemaking, where agency consultation can be appropriate and necessary.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision that significantly limited the FCC's authority to regulate cable television content and established key principles of administrative procedure. By rejecting the 'scarcity' rationale for cable, the court afforded cablecasting greater First Amendment protection than broadcasting, paving the way for the development of modern premium cable services. The ruling's strong condemnation of ex parte communications created a vital precedent for transparency in agency rulemakings, especially those involving competing economic interests. This decision fundamentally altered the television landscape by enabling a subscription-based model to compete directly with advertiser-supported broadcasting, thereby increasing program diversity and viewer choice.
