Opinion ID: 732303
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Viacom

Text: 37 In its Third R&O, the Commission rejected Viacom's proposal on the ground that it was not innovative, but rather was a compilation[ ] of existing technologies. 9 F.C.C.R. at 1373 p 301. According to Viacom, this explanation is inadequate in that it does not explain why compilations are not innovative or state what existing technologies Viacom's proposal combined. Viacom further argues that the Commission acted arbitrarily by treating Viacom's proposal differently than APC's despite the fact that the proposals were similar. 38 As a general rule, [t]he filing of a petition for reconsideration [is] not ... a condition precedent to judicial review of any [Commission] order unless one plans to raise on appeal questions of fact or law upon which the Commission ... has been afforded no opportunity to pass. 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2). Interpreting this provision, we have held that in order to question on appeal the adequacy of the FCC's explanation of its decision, a party must first present its concerns to the Commission so that the agency is afforded an opportunity to cure any defect. See United States v. FCC, 707 F.2d 610, 617, 619 (D.C.Cir.1983). 39 In response to the Commission's Tentative Decision, Viacom filed comments asserting that it and APC were equally deserving of pioneer's preferences. See Viacom Comments in Response to the Commission's Tentative Decision at 16. However, Viacom did not demonstrate the similarity of its proposal to that of APC by comparing the two. Viacom's comments also contained a passing reference to the Commission's failure to explain its decision. This statement, however, was far too vague to afford the Commission an opportunity to cure any defect in its order. When the Commission issued its Third R&O rejecting Viacom's preference request on the same grounds advanced in the Tentative Decision, Viacom did not petition for reconsideration. As a result, Viacom failed to raise its claims before the Commission clearly. Therefore, we will not consider them on appeal.