GREAT LAKES BROADCASTING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE, THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTING COMPANY, INTERVENOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the FCC is not required to make a detailed comparison of specific program proposals when no significant differences exist between applicants' proposals.
The FCC granted a television construction permit to one applicant and denied another's. The denied applicant appealed, arguing the FCC failed to compa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Broadcasting cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Communications Commission which, after a comparative hearing on mutually exclusive applications for a television station construction permit in Toledo, Ohio, granted the application of the Community Broadcasting Company and denied that of appellant, Great Lakes Broadcasting Company. Appellant contends that, although required, the Commission failed to make a detailed comparison of the applicants’ specific program proposals. The Commission concedes that it made no such comparison, but it urges that none is necessary here. The Commission asserts that its function with respect to program proposals is to ascertain whether the applicants’ over-all program balance and structure meet the needs of the service area and whether the applicants have made an effort to determine these needs, and that it is required to make a detailed comparison of individual programs only in cases where significant differences in entire fields of programming are made to appear.1 We cannot say that this view of the Commission’s role is unreasonable or otherwise precluded by the Act.2 Here the Commission found, upon substantial evidence, that no significant differences existed between the applicants’ program proposals. Hence we agree that further detailed comparison of program content was unnecessary.
Appellant’s other contentions also provide no basis for disturbing the Commission’s action.
Affirmed.
. Of course, if it should appear to the Commission that the program proposals of no applicant meet the needs of the service area and that, consequently, the award of a license would not be in the public interest, the Commission may not grant a license to any of the applicants. Clarksburg Pub. Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1955, 96 U.S.App. D.C. 211, 225 F. 2d 511; Mansfield Journal Co. v. Federal Communications Comm., 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 180 F. 2d 28. Cf. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 108 U.S. App.D.C. 409, 283 F. 2d 204; City of Pittsburgh v. Federal Power Comm., 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 123 note 28, 237 F. 2d 741, 751 note 28.
. Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934), as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1958), 47 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F. L. Crowder tr/as Harriman Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 399 F.2d 569 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- City OF Pittsburgh v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 237 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
- Mich. Consol. GAS Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 283 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Clarksburg Publ'g Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 225 F.2d 511 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Mansfield Journal Co. (fm) v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 180 F.2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1950)