Opinion ID: 430486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: threshold question

Text: 31 The threshold question is whether the Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq., permits the FCC to designate non-carriers as authorized users which are able to lease satellite channels directly from Comsat. The plain language of the Act indicates that the class of authorized users contains entities other than carriers. Moreover, the plain language, the legislative history, and the statutory scheme of the Act, convince us that Congress intended to give the FCC broad discretion to designate non-carriers as authorized users and that the FCC is not required to maintain a two-tiered structure in the industry. 22 Accordingly, we hold that the Act grants the FCC broad discretion to designate non-carriers as authorized users. 32 Although the Satellite Act does not define the class of permissible authorized users, the parties agree that the FCC is the proper licensing agency in this instance, and that the FCC may, under some circumstances, designate non-carriers as authorized users; the question is which non-carriers are eligible for authorized user status. Petitioners argue that the only non-carrier entity entitled to authorized user status is the United States government. 23 According to petitioners, such a limitation on the FCC's discretion is consistent with Congress' predictions that Comsat would serve the industry as primarily a carriers' carrier. 24 In response, the FCC asserts that it may designate non-carriers as authorized users whenever it finds that such a designation will serve the public interest. We believe that the FCC's statutory interpretation is correct. 33 The most basic rule of statutory construction requires that courts attribute to the words of a statute their plain meaning. See, e.g., Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers, 390 U.S. 459, 465, 88 S.Ct. 1140, 1144, 20 L.Ed.2d 30 (1968). The Act indicates that Comsat may lease satellite channels to United States communications common carriers and to other authorized entities, foreign and domestic. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 735(a)(2) (emphasis added), and that Comsat may contract with authorized users, including the United States Government, for the services of the communications satellite system. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 735(b)(4) (emphasis added). Congress has indicated that Comsat may deal directly with carriers, a well-defined group, as well as with other authorized entities, a group whose membership is unclear. Petitioners would define the members of the latter class as including only carriers and the United States government. Such an interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute because it renders the statutory language other authorized entities a redundancy. 25 If Congress intended to restrict the class of authorized users to authorized carriers and the United States government, it knew how to do so. 26 Although the intended scope of the class of authorized entities is not defined expressly by the Act, the plain language indicates that the words other authorized entities mean non-carriers, including the United States government, who receive a license from the appropriate licensing agency. Thus, the plain language of the Act does not limit the FCC's discretion to designate non-carriers as authorized users. 34 The legislative history indicates that Congress specifically considered language which would have limited Comsat's ability to offer retail services. Prior to the passage of the Act, the FCC objected strenuously to the proposed language and to other authorized entities because it believed that such language was broad enough to allow Comsat to compete with carriers on the retail level. In February of 1962, Newton Minow, Chairman of the FCC, urged the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, which was considering Senate Bill S. 2814, 27 to delete other authorized entities and to restrict expressly Comsat's ability to enter the retail market. Chairman Minow offered the Senate Committee a proposed revision of S. 2814 which would have limited Comsat's ability to serve the general public. 28 To assure that Congress was aware of the FCC's opposition to S. 2814, Chairman Minow also appeared before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on March 14, 1962 and warned the Committee, which was considering the House version of S. 2814, 29 that the proposed language authorized entities would permit Comsat to compete with the carriers at the retail level. Again, Chairman Minow expressed the FCC's desire that the language authorized entities be deleted and that Comsat's role in the industry be defined expressly as a communications common carriers' carrier. Communications Satellites: Hearings on H.R. 10115 and 10138 before the House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 408, 416-17 (1962). On April 11, 1962, Chairman Minow testified before the Senate Commerce Committee reiterating the FCC's interpretation that the authorized entities language gave it unwanted discretion to permit Comsat to compete with the carriers at the retail level. 30 Clearly, Congress was aware that the FCC, the agency charged with the responsibility of choosing which entities would be entitled to authorized user status, would not consider Congress' predictions concerning Comsat's role in the industry as a limitation on its discretion to designate non-carriers as authorized users. Yet, in the bills' final version, Congress retained the authorized entities language. Congress' action in this regard is a strong indication that it did not intend to limit the FCC's discretion to designate authorized users and thus to allow Comsat to enter the retail market, by requiring the FCC to promote a two-tiered structure. 35 Finally, the legislative scheme of the Act also supports the conclusion that Congress' predictions concerning Comsat's role as a carriers' carrier were not intended as a limitation on the FCC's discretion in designating non-carriers as authorized users. The Act specifically permits the FCC to grant appropriate authorizations for the construction and operation of each satellite terminal station (earth station), either to the corporation (Comsat) or to one or more authorized carriers or to the corporation and to one or more such carriers, jointly, as will best serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 721(c)(7). The provision permits both Comsat and the IRCs to own earth stations and, thus, to provide independently earth station service. Entities that are permitted to independently own and operate earth stations can provide retail services; 31 thus, the Act grants both Comsat and the IRCs the ability to offer retail services. Also, the Act encourages the FCC to maximize competition in the provision of equipment and services utilized by the system and to assure that Comsat is operated in such a fashion as to maintain and strengthen competition in the provision of communications services to the public. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 701(c). Clearly, if Congress intended to foreclose competition between Comsat and the IRCs at the retail level, it would not have permitted the FCC to allow both Comsat and the IRCs to provide retail services and encouraged the FCC to promote maximum competition in the provision of satellite services. Thus, the scheme of the Act is further evidence that Congress did not intend to foreclose retail competition between Comsat and the IRCs. 36 We find that the plain language, the legislative history and the scheme of the Act indicate clearly that the FCC may designate non-carriers as authorized users, and that the FCC is not required to maintain a two-tiered structure in the industry. Congress' predictions concerning Comsat's role in the industry are insufficient to support petitioners' inference that Congress intended to limit the FCC's discretion to designate non-carriers as authorized users. In light of the FCC's repeated requests that Congress adopt language limiting expressly Comsat's ability to compete with the carriers at the retail level and Congress' refusal to adopt such language, we believe the more reasonable inference is that Congress' predictions were not intended as limitations on the FCC's discretion. Moreover, a review of the Act reveals that both Comsat and the common carriers may offer a retail service and that one of the policies of the Act is to promote maximum competition in the industry when such competition furthers the public interest. We believe that the scheme of the Act indicates that Congress did not intend to restrict the FCC's ability to promote retail competition between Comsat and the common carriers. Accordingly, we hold that the Satellite Act permits the FCC to designate non-carriers as authorized users so long as such status furthers the public interest, and therefore, that the Act affords the FCC the discretion to allow Comsat to compete at the retail level.