Court Opinion

ID: 9852396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:29:47.528596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:27.462696
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I find I cannot agree with the opinion of McCown, J. Title 47 U. S. C. A., section 152 (b), provides: “Subject to the provisions of section 301 of this title, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier, * *
Title 47 U. S. C. A., section 221 (b), provides: “Subject to the provisions of section 301 of this title, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply, or to give the Commission jurisdiction, with respect to charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with wire, mobile, or point-to-point radio telephone exchange service, or any combination thereof, even though a portion of such exchange service constitutes interstate or foreign communication, in any case where such matters are subject to regulation by a State commission or by local governmental authority.” In General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. United *780States, 449 F. 2d 846, at 855, it is stated: “We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuit which was, inter alia, that ‘ (t)he exclusion embodied in Section 2 (b) (2) was meant to protect State jurisdiction over local telephone facilities which could place interstate calls through their connection with major toll lines; this interstate facet of the" company’s operation was incidental to its primary local service,’ 413 F. 2d at 402.” (General Telephone Co. of Cal. v. F. C. C., 413 F. 2d 390.)
We are dealing here with the right of the Nebraska Public Service Commission to control the interconnection of customer-owned or provided equipment to the communication equipment of a telephone company. The situation is similar to that presented by local telephone facilities, such as rural lines, which can place interstate calls through their connection with major toll lines. Federal Communications Commission control in such instances is clearly barred by the federal statutes. Under modern conditions any subscriber to such a rural line can dial direct on long distance whether it be intrastate or interstate. Nevertheless, the Nebraska Public Service Commission has control of such lines to the exclusion of the Federal Communications Commission. Wherein does this type of service differ from that offered by a motel supplying telephone service to guests in its rooms? The guests have both local and interstate service available on a basis similar to that of a rural subscriber. In neither case is there any harm done to any interstate communication system and in the absence of any such detrimental effect there is no necessity or reason for Federal Communications Commission interference.
The opinion of McCown, J., is based primarily on In re Telerent Leasing Corp., FCC 74-109, Docket No. 19808. This case has been appealed and it would appear that there exists a serious likelihood that the Federal Communications Commission will be held to have overstepped its authority.