Evening star., 1940-03-27

troversy itself has set forth prin-
ciples of far-reaching Importance
to both television and broadCasting.
On Sunday morning the Ameri-
can people read that the Communi-
cations Commission had arbitrarily
struck down the development of
the television industry by an edict
ordering one of the leading COM
panies to refrain from selling sets
on the theory that they might be-
come obsolete in a short time On
Monday this correspondent drew at
tention to the way the commission
had completely miscOnstrueu its
power as written by Congress IN the
law creating the commission, but
it was asserted in these columns
that perhaps the commission had
derived encouragement from recent
Supreme Court opinions,
Today an apology is due the Su-
preme Court, for it has proclaimed
in formal opinion that the Com
munications Commission did not re-
ceive at the hands of Congress any
power to regulate the broadcasting
business, out merely to allocate wave
lengths so as to prevent interior
ence that the public interest might
be served.
Language Unmistakable.
The latest opinion rendered by
Justice Owen Roberts in behalf of
the Supreme Court declares in un-
mistakable language what the rights
of the Communications Commission
are and plainly the commission had
no lawful right to issue the order
which it did last week, striking
down the development of television,
In discussing the issuance OF
licenses for broadcasting which, of
course, is based on the same author
ity in the law as relates to televislon
licenses, the Supreme Court said:
THE Communications Act does
not essay to regulate the business
of the licensee. The commission is
given no supervisory control Of the
programs. of business management
or of policy. In short, the broad
casting field is open to any one pro-
quency over which he can broad
cast without interference to others,
if he shows his competency, the
adequacy of his equipment, and
financial ability to make good use OF
the assigned channel"
There is nothing in the foregoing
which gives the Federal Communi-
cations Commission the right to
regulate the merchandising OF tele-
vision sets or radio sets or the proh-
lem of whether some sets will be-
come obsolete AS matter OF fact.
the commissions recent solicitude
may possibly be traced to the fact
that some companies were prepared
to 90 ahead with television and
others were not. But the Supreme
Court says significantly in the same
decision:
THE Communications Act recog-
nizes that broadcasters are not COM
mon carriers and are not to be dealt
with as such. Thus the act recog-
nizes that the field of broadcasting
is one Of free competition. The Sec
tions dealing with broadcasting
demonstrate that Congress has not.
in It's regulatory scheme, abandoned
the principle of free competition as
It has done in the case of railroads,
in respect of which regulation in
wolves the suppression of wasteful
practices due to competition, the
regulation of rates and charges, and
other measures which are unneces-
sary If free competition is to be
permitted"
Controversy Inside Industry.
The above disposes also of point
which has been a matter of con-
troversy inside the broadcasting in
dustry for several years, some OBJ
servers contending that rates could
be regulated and others insisting
that broadcasting was like the news
paper business. that is not subject
to special regulation as to the con-
duct of the business itself even
though licensed.
Justice Roberts decision may well
become in history the Magma Charta
of radio broadcasting as well as
television for 1t proclaims the Amer.
lean principle of free competition
and in effect stays the hand Of 9
governmental commission which wa!
just getting ready to interpret few