Yes. The FCC's job isn't just to be a traffic cop for the airwaves to prevent static. Because there are only a limited number of radio frequencies, they are a public resource. The FCC's main goal, given by law, is to make sure this resource is used for the public's benefit. This means it can make rules to stop business deals that limit choices for listeners and hurt competition. Freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the automatic right to a radio license to do whatever they want with a public resource.

No. The FCC is overstepping its authority. The law that created the FCC was about managing technical issues, like assigning channels, not about meddling in the private business contracts of radio networks. If the networks are acting like monopolies, there are other laws and government agencies to handle that. The court is giving the FCC powers that Congress never intended for it to have, and it shouldn't be allowed to regulate an entire industry based on a vague phrase like 'public interest'.

The special radio law gives the FCC a lot of power to control radio to help the public. This power isn't just about technical stuff, but also about making sure radio stations serve the community, even if it affects their contracts with networks. The FCC's rules are reasonable because they try to fix problems the FCC found were bad for competition and the public. Having radio rules based on the 'public interest' is not too vague. The free speech rules don't mean you have a right to use radio without a license, so denying a license doesn't violate free speech if it's in the public interest.

The FCC went too far and doesn't have the power to control business deals between networks and stations. The radio law doesn't give the FCC the right to change the whole radio industry. The 'public interest' idea has to be understood based on what the law was meant to do. The FCC's power to give out licenses doesn't mean they can control the whole industry or all the network contracts. If we need rules like this, Congress should make a new law, not let the FCC pretend it already has the power. It's not the FCC's job to enforce other laws about competition through its licensing rules.

—upholding a delegation of legislative authority based on the general policy to regulate in the "public interest

—the United States Supreme Court upheld the power of the federal government to require that broadcasters be licensed and that such a license could be denied because of certain behavior on the part of the applicant.

In 1934, Congress authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate "a field of enterprise the dominant characteristic of which was the rapid pace of its unfolding."

—public interest, convenience, or necessity'"in establishing rules under the Federal Communications Act

—upholding delegation of authority to the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcast licensing "as public interest, convenience, or necessity" requires

—the Supreme Court held that "[t] he right of free speech does not include... the right to use the facilities of radio without a license."

—explaining that the court's job is complete when it finds "that the action of the Commission was based upon findings supported by evidence, and was made pursuant to authority granted by Congress

" `Freedom of utterance is abridged to many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio. Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is not available to all. That is its unique characteristic, and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to governmental regulation. Because it cannot be used by all, some who wish to use it must be

"If time and changing circumstances reveal that the'public interest'is not served by application of the Regulations, it must be assumed that the Commission will act in accordance with its statutory obligations."

He does not claim that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority to control and regulate access to the spectrum.

Yes. The Communications Act of 1934 empowers the Commission to regulate more than just the technical and engineering aspects of radio broadcasting. The Act's mandate to regulate in the 'public interest, convenience, or necessity' is a broad and comprehensive grant of authority, intended to ensure the 'larger and more effective use of radio.' Because the radio spectrum is a scarce public resource, the Commission is responsible for determining the composition of radio traffic, not just policing the airwaves for interference. Section 303(i) specifically authorizes the FCC 'to make special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain broadcasting.' The regulations are not an improper attempt to enforce antitrust laws but a valid exercise of the FCC's licensing power to foster competition and prevent contractual arrangements that it finds detrimental to the public interest. Furthermore, this regulatory scheme does not violate the First Amendment; the right to free speech does not include an unconditional right to a broadcast license, and the government may impose regulations on a scarce medium to protect the public interest.

No. The Communications Act of 1934 does not grant the Commission the authority to regulate the contractual relationships between stations and networks. The power to make such fundamental changes to the business of broadcasting is not found in the text of the Act and should not be created by implication from the general 'public interest' standard. The Act's licensing criteria focus on an applicant's character, finances, and technical qualifications, not their business arrangements. The specific grant of authority over 'chain broadcasting' in § 303(i) was intended to address technical interference problems, not to give the FCC sweeping control over network business practices. Congress provided a specific remedy for anticompetitive behavior in §§ 311 and 313, which require a judicial conviction under antitrust laws before the FCC can deny a license on those grounds. The Commission is usurping authority that Congress has not granted.

The Communications Act of 1934 grants the FCC expansive powers to regulate broadcasting in the public interest. This authority is not limited to technical and engineering aspects, but encompasses all matters that impact the ability of broadcasters to serve the public, including contractual relationships with networks. The FCC's Chain Broadcasting Regulations are a reasonable exercise of this broad authority because they seek to correct practices the FCC determined were inimical to competition and the public interest. The standard of 'public interest, convenience, or necessity' is not so vague as to constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The right of free speech does not include the right to use radio facilities without a license, and denial of a license on public interest grounds does not violate the First Amendment.

The FCC has exceeded the scope of its statutory authority by promulgating regulations that control the business relationships between networks and stations. The Communications Act does not grant the FCC such far-reaching powers to remake the broadcasting industry. The 'public interest' standard is not a carte blanche and must be interpreted in light of the limited purposes of the Act. The FCC's licensing authority over individual stations does not extend to general supervision of the industry or control of network contracts. If such regulations are needed, the proper course is to seek additional legislation from Congress, not to fabricate authority from vague statutory provisions. The FCC's role is not to enforce the antitrust laws through its licensing power.

National Broadcasting Co. v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot