ITT World Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., s. 79-1046
| Decision Date | 13 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | 80-1972,80-1318,83-1244,79-1049,83-1245 and 83-1247,80-1414,82-1992,80-1947,83-1241,82-2082,82-2077,Nos. 79-1046,s. 79-1046 |
| Citation | 233 U.S.App.D.C. 205,725 F.2d 732 |
| Parties | ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Public Broadcasting Service, Spanish International Network, Inc., Communications Satellite Corporation, Public Broadcasting Service, RCA Global Communications, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, European Broadcasting Union, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., Intervenors. WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Public Broadcasting Service, Spanish International Network, Inc., Communications Satellite Corporation, RCA Global Communications, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, European Broadcasting Union, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., Intervenors. ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Communications Satellite Corporation, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., RCA Global Communications, Inc., Public Broadcasting Service, Spanish International Network, Inc., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors. WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America. WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Communications Satellite Corporation, RCA Global Communications, Inc., Public Broadcasting Service, Intervenors. ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Communications Satellite Corporation, RCA Global Communications, Inc., Public Broadcasting Service, Intervenors. RCA GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Communicati |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Robert E. Conn, Washington, D.C., with whom William J. Byrnes, Washington, D.C., was on brief for petitioner, Western Union International, Inc., Petitioner in 79-1049, 80-1414, 80-1937, 82-1992 and 83-1244. Stephen C. Weingarten, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioner.
Theodore J. Fischkin, New York City, for petitioner, ITT World Communications, Inc., petitioner in 79-1046, 80-1318, 80-1947, 82-2082 and 83-1245. Grant S. Lewis and John S. Kinzey, New York City, also entered appearances for petitioner.
Alan Y. Naftalin, Washington, D.C., with whom Margot Smiley Humphrey, Washington, D.C., Gregory C. Staple and Charles M. Lehrhaupt, New York City, were on brief for petitioner, RCA Global Communications, Inc., Petitioner in 82-1972 and 83-1241.
E. Edward Bruce, Thomas William Mayo and Lloyd D. Young, Washington, D.C., were on brief for petitioner, TRT Telecommunications Corporation. Petitioner in 82-2077 and 83-1247.
Bruce E. Fein, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., with whom Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, John E. Engle, Deputy Associate General Counsel and Nancy E. Stanley, Asst. General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondents. Jane E. Mago, Sheldon M. Guttman, Robert R. Bruce, Attorneys, Federal Communications Commission, John J. Powers, III, Peter L. de la Cruz, Barry Grossman, Nancy C. Garrison and Frederic Freilicher, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents.
Sally Katzen, Washington, D.C., with whom J. Roger Wollenberg, Neal T. Kilminster and Lawrence M. DeVore, Washington, D.C., were on brief for intervenor, Communications Satellite Corporation. Barry M. Heller, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor.
John L. Bartlett, Washington, D.C., with whom Robert J. Butler, Washington, D.C., was on brief for intervenor, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. Charles R. Cutler and James E. Landry, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for intervenor.
Joseph DeFranco, Howard Monderer, Joseph M. Kittner and Randolph J. May, Washington, D.C., were on brief for intervenors, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., CBS, Inc., and National Broadcasting Company, Inc. R. Michael Senkowski, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor.
Donald E. Ward and Philip M. Walker, Washington, D.C., were on brief for intervenor, GTE Telenet Communications Corporation.
Norman P. Leventhal and Meredith S. Senter, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on brief for intervenor, Spanish International Network, Inc. James A. McKenna, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor.
Thomas J. O'Reilly and Shelly Sternad Dempsey, Washington, D.C., were on brief for intervenor, Hawaiian Telephone Company. Daniel J. Greenwald, III, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor.
Harry M. Plotkin, Theodore D. Frank, Peter Tannenwald, and Cynthia L. Hathaway, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor, Public Broadcasting Service.
Edgar Mayfield and Shant J. Harootunian, Bedminster, N.J., entered appearances for intervenor, American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
Arthur Scheiner and Stuart F. Feldstein, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor, European Broadcasting.
Mark P. Bresnahan, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor, Southern Pacific Communications Company.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge and CELEBREZZE, * Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge CELEBREZZE.
Petitioners 1 seek review of a series of decisions 2 made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In these decisions, the FCC has attempted to restructure the international telecommunications markets by heightening competition between the two principal modes of telecommunications: satellite systems and cable systems. Essentially, the decisions permit the Commercial Satellite Corporation (Comsat), which had functioned previously as a wholesaler of satellite services, to sell its satellite services directly to the public, a role which previously had been performed only by petitioners. By permitting Comsat to operate as a retailer of telecommunication services, the FCC expects to foster competition between satellite and cable systems and, thus, to promote greater efficiency in both systems. The issue in this case is simply stated: whether the FCC may permit Comsat to sell its satellite services to the general public and, if it may, whether it properly has exercised its power in this instance.
A. The International Telecommunications Industry. Two means of transmitting international telecommunications messages are generally available: cable and satellite. The United States communications common carriers 3 own and operate the international cable network. The communications satellites in dispute are owned and operated by the International Satellite Telecommunications Organization (Intelsat). 4 The Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat) is the only United States entity permitted direct access to Intelsat's satellite system. 5 Comsat, in turn, is authorized by Congress to provide satellite transmission service only to "authorized entities." 47 U.S.C. Sec. 735(a)(2). In 1966, the FCC established a policy which generally limited the class of authorized users to common carriers. Authorized Entities and Users, 4 FCC 2d 421 (1966) (Authorized User I ). As a consequence of the FCC's 1966 policy, a two-tiered market developed; Comsat acted as a "wholesaler" by leasing satellite circuits to the common carriers, who in turn, acted as "retailers" leasing satellite circuits to the public for transmission of international telecommunications messages.
When Comsat first offered commercial communications satellite service in 1965, the international telecommunications markets were rigidly compartmentalized; two separate and distinct classes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Henney
...of statutory construction requires that courts attribute to the words of a statute their plain meaning." ITT World Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., 725 F.2d 732, 743 (D.C.Cir.1984). Words in a statute are to be attributed their ordinary meaning, unless Congress gives them a specified or tech......
-
National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. F.C.C., s. 82-1926
...fails to consider how the likely future resolution of crucial issues will affect the rule's rationale. ITT World Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 725 F.2d 732 at 754 (D.C.Cir.1984). (noting Commission's authority to decide whether to prefer one service over another); Coastal Bend Television Co.......
-
Washington Water Power Co. v. F.E.R.C.
...should not defer to agency interpretations that are inconsistent with congressional purpose); ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 725 F.2d 732, 741 (D.C.Cir.1984) (agency construction of statute should be accepted unless inconsistent with obvious congression......
-
Luoyang Bearing Factory v. U.S., Slip Op. 02-118.
...near future,'" Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT ___, ___, 123 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1381 (2000) (quoting ITT World Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 725 F.2d 732, 754 (D.C.Cir.1984)), Commerce, in view of the rapidly-changing world of global trade and Commerce's limited resources, should be abl......