Sunbeam Television Corp. v. FEDERAL COMMUN. COM'N, 13180
| Decision Date | 14 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | 13183.,13181,No. 13180,13180 |
| Citation | 243 F.2d 26 |
| Parties | SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Biscayne Television Corporation, Intervenor. EAST COAST TELEVISION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Biscayne Television Corporation, Intervenor. SOUTH FLORIDA TELEVISION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Biscayne Television Corporation, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Alan Y. Naftalin, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Bernard Koteen and Samuel Miller, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant in No. 13,180.
Mr. Theodore Baron, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Missouri, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellant in No. 13,181. Mr. Arthur W. Scharfeld, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant in No. 13,181.
Mr. Peter Shuebruk, New York City, for appellant in No. 13,183. Messrs. Jack P. Blume, New York City, and Benito Gaguine, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant in No. 13,183.
Mr. Henry Geller, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, were on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. D. M. Patrick, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lester Cohen and Stanley S. Harris, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
These are consolidated appeals from a Commission order granting, after a comparative hearing, the application of intervenor, Biscayne Television Corporation, for a construction permit for a new television station to operate on Channel 7, Miami, Florida, and denying the mutually exclusive applications of appellants, Sunbeam Television Corporation, East Coast Television Corporation and South Florida Television Corporation.1 The Commission found all applicants qualified to operate the station in the public interest. It selected intervenor Biscayne as best qualified. The Commission preferred Biscayne in three comparative criteria: broadcast experience, past broadcast records of its principals, and integration of ownership with management. All appellants, on the other hand, were given a clear preference over Biscayne in diversification of control over media of mass communication. This was due to the fact that Biscayne's principals have controlling interests in Miami's only two daily newspapers and in two Miami radio stations, as well as in numerous mass media elsewhere. Preferences as to diversification of the occupation of principals were also awarded to all appellants, and two were preferred as to local residence of principals.
The Commission determined that a consultant contract which Mr. Trammell, the President, Director and General Manager of Biscayne, had with the National Broadcasting Company, a nationwide network organization,2 "should have no adverse effect upon the application of Biscayne in this proceeding." We think this was error. Mr. Trammell had been President and more recently Chairman of the Board of NBC, and continued to be associated with NBC on a consultant basis. At the time of the Commission's decision the unexpired period of his contract with NBC was about four years. The Commission found that the service requirements of the contract were not substantial; but the compensation is $25,000 per annum, and the contract provides that Mr. Trammell will do nothing in conflict with the interests of NBC and that he can be called upon for advice with respect to sales, station problems, talent, films and general policy matters.3
leaves no doubt as to the dominance of his position.
The failure to give any adverse effect to Mr. Trammell's association with NBC, in considering the comparative qualifications of Biscayne, was a departure from the Commission's established policy that it is desirable for local television stations and network organizations to be independent of each other, and thus to assure that networks can freely compete for affiliation with local stations, and local stations freely compete for network affiliation. This policy, reflected to a degree in § 3.658(f) of the Commission Rules and Regulations,4 is found in the Commission's decisions. In Abilene Broadcasting Co., 3 Pike & Fischer RR 1684, adverse significance was attached to the fact that a substantial stockholder of the applicant was an officer and director of a network, a part of which was in competition with the applicant. In WJPS, Inc., 3 Pike & Fischer RR 1314, the Commission regarded the fact that a substantial stockholder of the applicant was also vice president of American Broadcasting Company, a network, "an important consideration in deciding which of two mutually exclusive applications should be preferred." The Commission in its opinion refers to Wabash Valley Broadcasting Corp., 3 Pike & Fischer RR 229, where it is stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc.
...Plate Glass, 270 F.2d 167 (4 Cir. 1959); Northeast Airlines v. CAB, 331 F.2d 579, 589 (1 Cir. 1965); Sunbeam Television Corp. v. FCC, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 243 F.2d 26 (1957). We refer to the Allied Electrical Company and the Harold Christiansen In Allied Electric Company, supra, a Labor Dep......
-
Helton v. N.L.R.B.
...worthwhile to note that agencies have an obligation to be consistent in their adjudicative decisions. See, e. g., Sunbeam Television Corp. v. FCC, 243 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1957). This is not to say that they may never adjust previous rules of decision. See, e. g., Leedom v. Internat'l Brhd of E......
-
Fidelity Television, Inc. v. F. C. C.
...supra.49 Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, 1 F.C.C.2d 393, 396 & n. 8 (1965), citing Sunbeam Television Corp. v. FCC, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 243 F.2d 26, 29 & n. 6 (1957).50 RKO General, Inc., 44 F.C.C.2d 149, 227 (1969) (Hearing Exam.).51 See sources cited note 44 supra.52 ......
-
DC Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe
...63 S.Ct. at 459. Accord, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); Sunbeam Television Corp. v. FCC, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 243 F.2d 26 (1957) (Fahy, J.); Chae-Sik Lee v. Kennedy, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 294 F.2d 231 It might be argued that a remand would be fu......