Document: 346 U.S. 86 73 S.Ct. 998 97 L.Ed. 1470 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONv.RCA COMMUNICATIONS, Inc. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., v. RCA Nos. 567, 568. Argued April 29 and 30, 1953. Decided June 8, Robert L. Stern, Acting Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Ralph M. Carson, New York City, Mackay Radio Tel. Co. John T. Cahill, respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Telegraph (Mackay) provides radiotelegraph service between United States a number foreign countries. Over opposition Communications, (RCAC), which similar by means total 65 circuits including ones to Portugal Netherlands, Commission authorized Mackay, at that time communicate with 39 overseas points, open two new circuits, Netherlands. RCAC claims duplicate already 11 other are not here 'in public interest,' in has been unable show any tangible benefit public, such as better, cheaper or more comprehensive service, be derived from authorization Mackay's circuits. also urges, second objection authorizations, because corporate affiliation Commercial Cable (Commercial), conducts cable these points competition another carrier, Western Union, well would lessen radio weaken competitive efficiency Commercial, violation § 314 Act, 47 U.S.C.A. 314. 2 found competition, is, duplication facilities, impair ability existing RCAC, carriers render adequate service. More facilities present than necessary handle expected volume telegraph traffic under normal operating conditions, but proposed require substantial investment. For reasons concluded was 'reasonably feasible.' In addition, although it did 'not appear each issue will result lower rates speedier otherwise superior now available via RCAC,' provided itself its affiliated company, Commercial. Finding 'over-all generally' increased, effective introduced, should 'national policy favor competition.' From this policy, said, follows 'competition' is interest where Commission, members dissenting, thereupon —- F.C.C. —-. sought review successful Court Appeals on claim an applicant must demonstrate, had failed do here, authorization. 91 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 201 F.2d 694, Prettyman, J., dissenting. 3 We granted certiorari case, first grant challenged courts, presents primary importance authorization, Act 1934, international 345 902, 650. 4 With chaotic scramble domestic air space developed soon after First World War, Congress recognized need orderly development waves achieved prior legislation.1 Although 1912 forbidden operation apparatus without license Secretary Commerce Labor, judicial decision left him powerless prevent licensees using unassigned frequencies, restrict their transmitting hours power, deny ground station necessarily interfere stations.2 See National Broadcasting States, 319 190, 212, 63 997, 1007, 87 1344. thereupon, 1927, created wide licensing regulatory powers over interstate commerce. 5 purport transfer legislative power unbounded discretion body. choosing among applicants, guided 'public interest, convenience, necessity,' criterion we held too indefinite fair enforcement. Central Securities Corp. 287 12, 53 45, 77 138. statutory standard no doubt leaves calls imaginative interpretation. Not lends application exactude, expresses born exactitude, 'as concrete complicated factors judgment field delegated authority permit'. Comm. Pottsville Co., 309 134, 138, 60 437, 439, 84 656. 6 might have made administrative reviewable. suggested—or implied review—that could reserved final designation those who permitted utilize waves, precious they become technological advance, done so. On hand, scope Court's duty determinations 48 Stat. 1064, amended, U.S.C. 151 et seq., carefully defined. Ours reviewing 'fact,' narrow, colloquial concept. charged courts responsibility saying whether fairly exercised within vaguish, penumbral bounds expressed interest.' It our say proper considerations bringing deposit experience, disciplined feel expert, bear applications licenses interest. 7 ruled misinterpretation national thought maintenance sufficient goal federal communications so make authorize merely i.e., deplication relies holding decide, circumstances application, feasible beneficial. 8 case clearly indicated even own entirely apart demonstration contends, leads conclude desirable. seems relied almost interpretation policy. Since professed dispose upon view principle statute base conclusion matters special competence, us determine what governing is. Cf. Nelson Bros. Bond Mortgage 289 266, 276, 627, 632, 1166. 9 That there favoring cannot maintained today careful qualification. only blunt, undiscriminating sense speak ultimate good. Certainly areas economic activity play private forces subjected negative prohibitions Sherman Law, 15 absolute. Chicago Board Trade 246 231, 38 242, 62 683; cf. Mason, Monopoly Law Economics, Yale L.J. 34. 10 Prohibitory legislation like defining area may full play, course loses effectiveness practical limitations increase; severely limit separate enterprises can efficiently, conveniently, exist, qualification becomes manifest. Surely said situations To disregard long committed government monopoly longer post office, cf., e.g., 17 292 (criminal offense establish unauthorized office; provision since superseded), areas, loosely spoken natural monopolies or—more broadly—public utilities, active regulation compensate inability provide regulation. most strikingly shifted one prohibiting restraints providing relief rigors true railroads. Compare, Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 290, 540, 41 Joint-Traffic 171 505, 19 25, 43 259, Transportation 1920, 456, 480, 49 4; Consolidation Railroads, I.C.C. 455. affecting railroads familiar far unique example many serious inroads original competition. Indeed, industry before regulating mechanism. very fact seen fit enter into embodied 1934 contradicts notion unqualifiedly favors communications. terms prohibits whose entry does satisfy interest' standard. field, reason restriction undoubtedly lies primarily limited availability communication series conventions.3 Other applied: considered possible inconvenience facilities—as telephones—or inadequacy demand enterprise economically socially Whatever reasons, weigh; recognize encouragement single controlling reliance safeguarding interest.4 12 Of course, preclude agency drawing complementary auxiliary support. Satisfactory accommodation peculiarities individual industries demands requires blend intervention. much changing toward facilities.5 But reinforces improper suppose adopted defined courts. Had evaluation needs rather deemed order different foundation. There relevant factor weighing McLean Trucking 321 67, 86—88, 64 370, 380—381, 88 544. Our difficulty arises while recites beneficial effects, abstract, sterile way.6 Its independent conclusion, impact trends industry, desirable reading loose calculated mislead exercise entrusted it. 13 suffices competing carrier wherever reasonably abdicate seem duties imposed Congress. And read precisely that, think remanded reconsideration. therefore all circumstances, significance rightly attribute facts basis interest.7 inadmissible when makes manifest doing conscientiously exercising given Congress, reach whereby authorizations feasible. This functions gives accumulating insight vouchsafed dealing episodically problems involved determination. Here, however, based Commission's unjustified assumption Congress' Texas Pac. R. Gulf, C. S.F.R. 270 277, 46 263, 70 578. 14 reaching duplicating feasible, required specific findings benefit. if indicating immediate public. action cases evidence appropriate determination major creation agencies, better equipped intangibles 'by specialization, gained through flexible procedure.' Far East Conference 342 570, 575, 72 492, 494, 96 576. nature things, benefits lend themselves detailed forecast, Labor Relations Seven-Up Bottling 344 344, 348, 287, least warrant, were, serve some purpose maintaining good improving RCAC's contention demonstrate asking much, ask reasonable expectation effect. Merely assume bound advantage, regulated largely closed one, enough. asks uphold ground, violate forbids common ownership, control effect substantially restrain commerce unlawfully create monopoly. agree. recent years considerable shift radio, strongly accentuated countries, correspondent American companies government-controlled advocates transmission. instances us, beneficiary discrimination against transmission; negligible exception, light justified finding increase, decrease, relationship be, them, entitled look entire scene confine aspect company smaller share 1947 either Union Netherlands European area. enable system compete break up 16 arguments comparable language Clayton decisions cannot, think, sustained. What main market automatically transplanted agency; above, influenced particular industry. decrease word used context, supported satisfies requirements indicated, vacated court instructions remand disposition opinion. ordered. 18 Judgment instructions. BLACK evidential support, adequately support order, reversed affirmed. 20 REED JACKSON took part consideration case. 21 DOUGLAS, 22 I agree offers effect, measured indeed Appeals. record 23 —existing excess traffic; 24 —the operations redistribute generate 25 nor speed transmission improve respect; 26 aid financially detrimental RCA; 27 —this meet needs. 28 Judge Edgerton's showing acted set aside. unequivocal apparent way approved both below. occasion remand. affirm A brief outline earlier wire Administrative Procedure Government Agencies, Monograph Attorney General's Committee Procedure, S.Doc. No. 186, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., Part 3, 81—84. Early executive regarding laying cables reviewed Op.Atty.Gen. (1898). Hoover Intercity 52 App.D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003; Zenith Corp., 614; 35 126. Donovan, Origin Development Law. 26. attempt suggest precision balance struck. presence §§ 313 certain restrictions indicates relevance criteria, hardly directs rely 'competition.' Brief p. 6: 'From until 1939, just emerging infancy, generally denied countries served carriers. 1939 1942 regardless were circuit. 1943 affirmative authorizing (a 'duplicate circuit policy') followed war measure behest Defense Board. 1945, measure, reverse 'single War (the successor Board). 1945 (1951) circuits.' (Citations footnotes omitted.) stated opinion: 'Competition powerful incentive rendition cost. Those seeking patronage customers spurred install latest developments art services products, them reduce expenses thereby prices. should, therefore, lightly discarded.' R.623. bare statement whatever undisclosed awareness problem, sufficiently laid mind perform function. certainly say, instance, circumstances. stop consider argument so-called Oslo decision, affirmed District Columbia Circuit, stands way. F.C.C., 68 336, 641. decided authorized. affirming, simply never stated: 'Appellant contends error law failing interpret necessity' requiring Norway end appellant describes RCAC.' App.D.C., page 337, 642. concluded, 'In opinion, err matter refusing treat convenience requiring, definition, appellant.' 644. precise supports dissenting below, 294, pages 699, 700.

Category: 8