Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. F.C.C.

Decision Date19 July 1985
Docket NumberNos. 83-1283,83-2050,s. 83-1283
Citation768 F.2d 1434
Parties, 54 USLW 2076, 12 Media L. Rep. 1001 QUINCY CABLE TV, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents. KHQ, Incorporated, Spokane Television, Inc., King Broadcasting Company, Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc., National Association of Broadcasters, and Town of Quincy, Washington, Intervenors. TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents. Metromedia, Inc., Community Antenna Television Association, Inc., Black Entertainment Television, National Religious Broadcasters, Television Licensees, Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc., Corporation For Public Broadcasting, National Association of Broadcasters, Spanish International Communications Corporation et al., National Association of Public Television Stations, Columbus Broadcasting Company, Inc. et al., King Broadcasting Company, National Cable Television Association, Inc., Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc., McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. et al., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Station Representatives Association, Taft Television and Radio Company, Inc., and Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc., Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications commission.

John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom David M. Silverman, Washington, D.C., was on initial and supplemental briefs, for Quincy Cable TV, Inc., petitioner in No. 83-1283. John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for Town of Quincy, Wash., intervenor in No. 83-1283.

Bruce D. Sokler, Washington, D.C., with whom Charles D. Ferris, Frank W. Lloyd, and L. Gregory Ballard, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., petitioner in No. 83-2050.

Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, D.C., for respondents in Nos. 83-1283 and 83-2050. Bruce E. Fein, then Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, D.C., was on initial brief for respondents in No. 83-1283 and on brief for respondents in No. 83-2050. Gregory M. Christopher, Atty., F.C.C., Washington, D.C., was on initial brief for respondents and Supplemental Brief for Respondents, Intervenors, and Amici Curiae pursuant to Court Order of October 16, 1984 in No. 83-1283, and entered an appearance for respondent F.C.C. in No. 83-2050. Robert G. Nicholson and Margaret G. Halpern, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on initial brief for respondents and the Supplemental Brief for Respondents, Intervenors, and Amici Curiae in No. 83-1283, and on brief for respondents in No. 83-2050. J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., was on Supplemental Brief for Respondents, Intervenors, and Amici Curiae in No. 83-1283 and on brief for respondents in No. 83-2050. Jack D. Smith, Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, D.C., was on Supplemental Brief for Respondents, Intervenors, and Amici Curiae in No. 83-1283. Jane E. Mago and C. Grey Pash, Jr., Attys., F.C.C., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for respondent F.C.C. in No. 83-2050.

J. Laurent Scharff, Washington, D.C., with whom James M. Smith, Washington, D.C., was on initial and supplemental briefs in No. 83-1283 and on brief in No. 83-2050, for Ass'n of Independent Television Stations, Inc. and Nat. Ass'n of Broadcasters, intervenors in Nos. 83-1283 and 83-2050, and for Ass'n of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc., McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., Inc., Metromedia, Inc., Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc., and Taft Television and Radio Co., Inc., intervenors in No. 83-2050. Jonathan D. Blake, Paul J. Berman, and Gregory M. Schmidt, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. Arthur B. Goodkind and Mary M. Hendriksen, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenors McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., Inc. et al. Howard Monderer, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc. Erwin G. Krasnow and Michael D. Berg, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Nat. Ass'n of Broadcasters.

Arthur Stambler, Erwin G. Krasnow, Michael D. Berg, Edward W. Hummers, Jr., and David G. Rozzelle, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Spokane Television, Inc., intervenor in No. 83-1283, and Nat. Ass'n of Broadcasters and King Broadcasting Co., intervenors in Nos. 83-1283 and 83-2050 R. Russell Eagan, Washington, D.C., was on brief for KHQ, Inc., intervenor in No. 83-1283.

John Geoffrey Bentley, Washington, D.C., was on brief for Maranatha Broadcasting Co., Inc., intervenor in No. 83-2050. Laura Metcoff Klaus, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for this intervenor.

Norman P. Leventhal, Meredith S. Senter, Jr., and Barbara K. Kline, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Spanish Inter. Communications Corp. et al., intervenors in No. 83-2050.

Stephen R. Effros was on brief for Community Antenna Television Ass'n, Inc., intervenor in No. 83-2050.

Debra Lee Carter, Washington, D.C., was on brief for Black Entertainment Television, intervenor in No. 83-2050. Steven Reed, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for this intervenor.

Brenda L. Fox, Carol A. Melton, Robert St. John Roper, and Michael S. Schooler, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Nat. Cable Television Ass'n, Inc., intervenor in No. 83-2050.

Baryn S. Futa and Susan Dillon, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Corp. for Public Broadcasting and Nat. Ass'n of Public Television Stations, intervenors in No. 83-2050.

Edward W. Hummers, Jr., David G. Rozzelle, and Robert A. DePont, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for King Broadcasting Co., intervenor in Nos. 83-1283 and 83-2050.

Lawrence A. Horn, Nancy H. Hendry, Eric H. Smith, and Lewis J. Paper, Washington, D.C., were on brief for Corp. for Public Broadcasting et al., amici curiae in No. 83-1283, urging affirmance. Robert S. Blacher entered an appearance for these amici.

Daniel J. Popeo and Michael P. McDonald, Washington, D.C., were on brief for American Legal Foundation, amicus curiae in No. 83-2050, urging reversal.

Before WRIGHT, GINSBURG and BORK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge J. SKELLY WRIGHT.

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

FCC regulations require cable television operators, 1 upon request and without compensation, to transmit to their subscribers every over-the-air television broadcast signal 2 that is "significantly viewed in the community" or otherwise considered local under the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. Secs. 76.57-76.61 (1984). Alleging that these mandatory carriage or "must-carry" rules violate the First Amendment rights of cable programmers, cable operators, and the viewing public, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (TBS), the owner of a variety of cable services, 3 petitioned the FCC to institute rulemaking procedures to delete the offending regulations. 4 Although acknowledging that the challenged rules deprive cable programmers of access to some audiences and "compel carriage of broadcast signals in place of alternate programming that subscribers, if given a choice, might otherwise choose," the Commission denied TBS's petition. Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 84-136, April 6, 1984 (hereinafter Opinion and Order ), at 3, Joint Appendix to No. 83-2050 (Turner JA) at 3. TBS now petitions for review of that denial. In a separate action, Quincy Cable Television, Inc. (Quincy), the operator of a cable system in Quincy, Washington, petitions for review of an FCC order requiring it to carry the signals of several local broadcast stations and imposing a $5,000 "forfeiture" for its failure to do so. 5

In the course of reviewing those petitions, we have concluded and now hold that the must-carry rules are fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment and, as currently drafted, can no longer be permitted to stand.

I. BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that "[e]ach medium of expression * * * must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems." Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1246, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975). See also Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 501, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2889, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981) (plurality opinion). Mindful that in applying the broad principles of the First Amendment to new media we must remain sensitive to the "differing natures, values, abuses and dangers" of each method of expression, Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97, 69 S.Ct. 448, 459, 93 L.Ed. 513 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring), we examine in detail the nature of cable television technology, the history and purposes of the FCC's regulation of that technology, and prior judicial assessments of the constitutionality of that regulation.

A. Cable Television Regulation and the Origins and Purposes of the Must-Carry Rules
1.

Cable television and ordinary commercial broadcast television operate on the basis of wholly different technical and entrepreneurial principles. See generally Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2694, 2701, 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984). Conventional broadcasters radiate electromagnetic waves from a transmitting antenna. The waves are intercepted by the viewer's television receiver, typically via a rooftop antenna, and decoded to produce a video image. Broadcasters derive their revenues not by selling the signal to the viewer but by selling time to advertisers. 6 As a general rule, the larger the audience the greater the rate the broadcaster can charge.

In contrast, cable operators charge subscribers a fee for the right to view programming from a variety of broadcast and non-broadcast sources. 7 Although cable systems frequently have the capacity to originate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, Civ. A. No. 92-2247
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 12 Diciembre 1995
    ...were taken against them after July 19, 1985 when the must-carry rules that had been in effect were invalidated in Quincy Cable TV Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C.Cir.1985). Id. 18 "Hearings on Competitive Problems" at 394 (Table 9); CR Vol. I.H., Exh. 14, CR 05327. 19 CR Vol. I.Z., Exh. 140......
  • Cable Alabama Corp. v. City of Huntsville, Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 6 Agosto 1991
    ...107 L.Ed.2d 835 (1990); Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir.1985); Quincy Cable Television, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169, 106 S.Ct. 2889, 90 L.Ed.2d 977 (1986); Omega Satellite Products Co. v. City of Indian......
  • Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, No. 07-1425
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 12 Marzo 2010
    ... ... AT&T Inc. and Verizon, Intervenors. No. 07-1425 No. 07-1487. United States Court ... cable operators and cable affiliated programming networks. Petitioners assert ... Philadelphia net- [597 F.3d 1310] work from competitors, and the FCC used ... this example as a case study to reverse ... engineer what market ... the discriminatory treatment. See Quincy ... Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434, ... 1450-51 (D.C.Cir.1985) ... ...
  • Westmarc Com. v. Conn. Dept. of Public Utility
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 20 Junio 1990
    ...as if they have monopolistic powers is belied by the FCC's definition of effective competition. See also Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. F.C.C., 768 F.2d 1434, 1450 (D.C.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169, 106 S.Ct. 2889, 90 L.Ed.2d 977 (1986) (rejecting argument that cable operators are in a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking broadband internet access.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 22 No. 1, September 2008
    • 22 Septiembre 2008
    ...problems and providing more systematic empirical evidence supporting Posner's claim). (142.) See Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434, 1449-50 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (questioning the natural monopoly rationale for regulating cable); Cmty. Commc'ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 485 F. Supp. 1035,......
  • Leased Access: Has the Cable Television Carriage Requirement Become Unconstitutional?
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 74 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...377 (1968)). (175.) Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994) (plurality opinion) (citing Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434, 1455 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770-71 (1993); Los Angeles v. Preferred Commc'ns., Inc., 476 U.S. 488, 496 ("This Co......
  • The road not yet traveled: why the FCC should issue digital must-carry rules for public television "first".
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 57 No. 1, December 2004
    • 1 Diciembre 2004
    ...on all local commercial stations) with [section] 535 (no equivalent for noncommercial stations). (86.) See Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434, 1440 n. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1985). See also Rules re Microwave-Served CATV, First Report and Order, 38 F.C.C. 683 (1965); CATV, Second Report and......
  • Predation in Local Cable TV Markets
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 40-3, September 1995
    • 1 Septiembre 1995
    ...Federal Trade Commission; Letter to the Hon. FrankS. Sawyer, Ohio House of Representatives [July 5, 1990]).37 Quincy Cable TV v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert.denied sub nom. National Association of Broadcasters v. Quincy CableTV, Inc., 476 U.S. 1169 (1986); Preferred Communicat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT