Philadelphia Television Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 359 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Philadelphia Television Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 359 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
185 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission (cadc, 1985-07-09) · Strongest negative: National Association Of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (cadc, 1976-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" National Association Of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282 , 284 (1966) 102 National Ass'n of Regulatory Util.
discussed Cited "but see" National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282 , 284 (1966). .
discussed Cited "but see" National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Philadelphia Television Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282 , 284 (1966) (upholding F.C.C. classification of cable T.V. as a non-common carrier: “[Deference to the agency’s interpretation of its governing statute is reinforced where, as here, the legislative history is silent, or at best unhelpful, with respect to the point in question.”) .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In a statutory scheme in which Congress has given an agency various bases of jurisdiction and various tools with which to protect the public interest, the agency is entitled to some leeway in choosing which jurisdictional base and which regulatory tools will be most effective in advancing the Congressional objective. 359 F.2d at 284 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mci Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In a statutory scheme in which Congress has given an agency various bases of jurisdiction and various tools with which to protect the public interest, the agency is entitled to some leeway in choosing which jurisdictional base and which regulatory tools will be most effective in advancing the Congressional objective. 68 359 F.2d at 284 (emphasis added). 69 In this case, the services provided by the non-dominant carriers remain common carrier services.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Computer & Communications Industry Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
National Ass’n of Theatre Owners v. FCC, 420 F.2d 194, 204 (D.C.Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922 , 90 S.Ct. 914 , 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970). . 359 F.2d at 284. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Computer and Communications Industry Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, North American Telephone Association, Utilities Telecommunications Council, Tymnet, Inc., Continental Telephone Corporation, Xerox Corporation, Hazeltine Corporation, Alarm Industry Telecommunications Committee of the National Burglar & Fire Alarm Association, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Satellite Business Systems, Motorola, Inc., U.S. Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, American Petroleum Institute, Citicorp, Central Telephone & Utilities Corporation, Comsat General Corporation, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Gte Service Corporation, Sperry Univac Division of Sperry Corporation, Communications Satellite Corporation, International Business MacHines Corporation, American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, Control Data Corporation, United Telephone System, Inc., United Computing Systems, Inc., Southern Pacific Communications Company, Western Union Telegraph Company, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Isa Communications Services, Inc., Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., Bunker Ramo Corporation, Gte Telenet Communications Corporation, Municipality of Anchorage D/B/A Anchorage Telephone Utility, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Intervenors. The People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. American Newspaper Publishers Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. Motorola, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The two rules struck down in GTE Service Corp. are not relevant here 69 Computer II Final Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d at 429-30, 434-35 70 Id. at 429-30 71 National Ass'n of Theatre Owners v. FCC, 420 F.2d 194, 204 (D.C.Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922 , 90 S.Ct. 914 , 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970) 72 359 F.2d at 284 73 Id 74 Id. at 284 (emphasis added) 75 674 F.2d at 166-67 76 Id. at 165-66 (citations omitted) 77 Id. at 166 78 United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 172-73 , 88 S.Ct. at 2002 -03 79 Id. at 178 , 88 S.Ct. at 2005 80 47 U.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Udall v. Tollman, 380 U.S. 1 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 , 79 S.Ct. 1302 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1407 (1959); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 , 57 S.Ct. 170 , 81 L.Ed. 142 (1936); McCarthy v. F.C.C., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 390 F.2d 471 (1968); Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., supra, Note 53, 123 U.S.App.D.C. at 299-300, 359 F.2d at 283-284 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, Intervenors. Democratic National Committee v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Republican National Committee, Intervenor
D.C. Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Sec. 315 (a) (1964) 63 See, e. g., Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 , 79 S.Ct. 1302 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1407 (1959); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 , 57 S.Ct. 170 , 81 L.Ed. 142 (1936); McCarthy v. F.C.C., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 390 F.2d 471 (1968); Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., supra Note 53, 123 U.S.App.D.C. at 299-300, 359 F.2d at 283-284 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Van Curler Broadcasting Corporation and Wlky-Tv, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, McA Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc., McA Inc., Metromedia, Inc., Cbs Television Affiliates, Intervenors
2d Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
In light of these definitions, and in light of the National Broadcasting Company case, one must conclude that when the networks transmit their signals from a network owned station over leased connecting lines, and these signals are then relayed to the public by other network owned stations and by affiliated licensees, both the networks and the licensees are encompassed by the terms 'radio stations engaged in chain broadcasting.' 47 U.S.C. 303(i). 50 In addition, 47 U.S.C. 313 (1964) allows the consideration of market domination by networks, and 303(r) (1964) allows the Commission to 'make such…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
2d Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
In addition, 47 U.S.C. § 313 (1964) allows the consideration of market domination by networks, and § 303(r) (1964) allows the Commission to “[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions * * * as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” “In a statutory scheme in which Congress has given an agency various bases of jurisdiction and various tools with which to protect the public interest, the agency is entitled to some leeway in choosing which jurisdictional base and which regulatory tools will be most effective in advancing the Con…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (3×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. Cir. · 1967 · confidence medium
Regardless of the label attached to the distant-signal rules, they reflect a reasonable exercise of Commission power to prevent the extension of television signals beyond their predicted range whenever such extension is not in the public interest 20 Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282, 284 (1966) 21 National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 , 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 (1843).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (3×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. Cir. · 1967 · confidence medium
Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F. 2d 282, 284 (1966). .
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (2×)
D.C. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282 , 284 (1966) (deference to agency’s interpretation of its governing statute reinforced where legislative history is silent or marginally helpful); Isbister v. Boy's Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 144 Cal.App.3d 338 , 192 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 564 (1983) (rejection of specific provision in bill as introduced indicates legislative intent not to enact deleted provision) (citations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 40 Cal.3d 72 , 707 P.2d 212 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 150 (1985); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 48…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Midwest Video Corp.
SCOTUS · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See n. 12, supra. See also §§303 (f), (h), 48 Stat. 1082 , 47 U. S. C. §§ 303 (f), (h) (authorizing the Commission to prevent interference among stations and to establish areas to be served by them respectively).
discussed Cited "see" General Telephone Company of California v. Federal Communications Commission, Storer Broadcasting Company, Teleprompter Corporation, National Cable Television Assn., Inc., United States of America, Intervenors. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Company v. Federal Communications Commission, Storer Broadcasting Company, Teleprompter Corporation, Sterling Information Services, Ltd., National Cable Television Assn., Inc., United States of America, Intervenors. United Telephone Company of Ohio v. Federal Communications Commission, Storer Broadcasting Company, Warrensburg Cable, Inc., Teleprompter Corporation, Sterling Information Services, Ltd., National Cable Television Assn., Inc., United States of America, Intervenors. The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Teleprompter Corporation, Inc., National Cable Television Assn., Inc., Storer Broadcasting Company, City of New York, Cox-Cosmos, Inc., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Teleprompter Corporation, National Cable Television Assn., Inc., Storer Broadcasting Company, Intervenors (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
Comm'n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143 , 67 S.Ct. 245 , 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946); see Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298 , 359 F.2d 282 (1966) 24 See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 , 88 S.Ct. 1994 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1968); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747 , 88 S.Ct. 1344 , 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968) 25 See also 78 Cong.Rec. 10,314 (1934) (remarks of Rep.
discussed Cited "see" General Telephone Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143 , 67 S.Ct. 245 , 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946); see Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298 , 359 F.2d 282 (1966). .
discussed Cited "see" Midwest Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298 , 359 F.2d 282 , decided March 28, 1966; Idaho Microwave, Inc. v. FCC, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 253 , 352 F.2d 729 (1965) ; Citizens TV Protest Committee v. FCC, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 50 , 348 F.2d 56 (1965); Carter Mountain Transmission Corp. v. FCC, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 93 , 321 F.2d 359 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951 , 84 S.Ct. 442 , 11 L.Ed.2d 312 (1963). .
discussed Cited "see" Midwest Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Midwest Video Corporation and Black Hills Video Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Insurance Workers Int'l Union, etc. v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 378 , 360 F.2d 823 , decided February 28, 1966. 4 To the extent that substantive requirements as to carriage and nonduplication, for example, are set forth in both orders, the issues on review are substantially similar, except that additional issues are presented by the changes and new requirements set forth in the Second Order 5 See Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298 , 359 F.2d 282 , decided March 28, 1966; Idaho Microwave, Inc. v. FCC, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 253 , 352 F.2d 729 (1965); Cit…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wold Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., Citicorp, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Home Box Office, Inc., Hughes Communications, Inc., Southern Pacific Communications Co., MCI Telecommunications Corp., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. And Cbs, Inc., Western Union Telegraph Company, Southern Pacific Satellite Co., Viacom International, Inc., National Cable Satellite Corp., Spanish International Network, Inc., Intervenors. Wold Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Western Union Telegraph Company, MCI Telecommunications Corp., Southern Pacific Communications Co., Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., Hughes Communications, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and Cbs, Inc., Gte Satellite Corporation, Home Box Office, Inc., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Citicorp, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Southern Pacific Satellite Co., Viacom International, Inc., National Cable Satellite Corp., Spanish International Network, Inc., Intervenors. Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Western Union Telegraph Company, Southern Pacific Communications Co., Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., Hughes Communications, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and Cbs, Inc., Citicorp, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Home Box Office, Inc., Gte Satellite Corporation, Rca American Communications, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Southern Pacific Satellite Company, Viacom International, Inc., National Cable Satellite Corp., Spanish International Network, Inc., Intervenors. Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., Citicorp, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Home Box Office, Inc., Rca American Communications, Inc., Western Union Telegraph Company, Southern Pacific Communications Co., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and Cbs, Inc., Hughes Communications, Inc., Gte Satellite Corporation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Southern Pacific Satellite Co., Viacom International, Inc., National Cable Satellite Corp., Spanish International Network, Inc., Intervenors. Wold Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Southern Pacific Satellite Company, Intervenor
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Computer II, 693 F.2d at 212 (citing with approval the holding of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 674 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1982), that "newly unleashed market forces" constituted a reasonable substitute regulatory tool); National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 645 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 992 , 96 S.Ct. 2203 , 48 L.Ed.2d 816 (1976); see also Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 359 F.2d 282 (D.C.Cir.1966) (substituting Title III for Title II regulation is "rational and hence permissible").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wold Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Computer II, 693 F.2d at 212 (citing with approval the holding of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 674 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1982), that “newly unleashed market forces” constituted a reasonable substitute regulatory tool); National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 645 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 992 , 96 S.Ct. 2203 , 48 L.Ed.2d 816 (1976); see also Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 359 F.2d 282 (D.C.Cir.1966) (substituting Title III for Title II regulation is “rational and hence permissible”).
examined Cited "see, e.g." American Public Health Association v. Earl Butz, Secretary of Department of Agriculture (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Philadelphia TV Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300 , 359 F.2d 282 , 284 (1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co., Permittee of Construction Permit for Television Station Wphl-Tv
v.
Federal Communications Commission, United States of America, Rollins, Inc., National Community Television Association, Inc., Intervenors
19577.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 28, 1966.
359 F.2d 282
Cited by 60 opinions  |  Published

359 F.2d 282

PHILADELPHIA TELEVISION BROADCASTING CO., Permittee of Construction Permit for Television Station WPHL-TV, et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, United States of America, Respondents,
Rollins, Inc., National Community Television Association, Inc., Intervenors.

No. 19577.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued December 1, 1965.

Decided March 28, 1966.

Mr. Joseph A. Fanelli, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Benedict P. Cottone, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners.

Mr. Daniel Ohlbaum, Deputy Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., for respondents. Asst. Atty. Gen. Lyle M. Turner, Messrs. Henry Geller, Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., John H. Conlin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Mrs. Lenore Ehrig, Atty., F.C.C., and Mr. Lionel Kestenbaum, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents.

Mr. Stanley S. Neustadt, Washington, D. C., for intervenor Rollins, Inc. Messrs. Marcus Cohn, Paul Dobin and Joel H. Levy, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenor Rollins, Inc.

Messrs. Robert D. L'Heureux, E. Stratford Smith and Roger E. Zylstra, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenor National Community Television Ass'n, Inc.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DANAHER and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

[*~282]1

Petitioners filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission seeking an order that Rollins Broadcasting, Inc. cease and desist from constructing and operating a community antenna television (CATV) system serving Wilmington, Delaware, until Rollins complies with the requirements of Title II of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201-222, with respect to common carriers. The Commission, being of the view that CATV systems are not common carriers within the meaning of Title II, summarily dismissed the complaint. We affirm the Commission's action, for reasons developed below.

2

Petitioners urge that CATV systems are common carriers within the meaning of the Communications Act, and that the FCC is therefore required to apply the provisions of Title II of that Act, e. g., requiring CATV systems to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity, and file charges with the Commission.

3

In approaching the problem of statutory interpretation before us, we show "great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration. `To sustain the Commission's application of this statutory term, we need not find that its construction is the only reasonable one or even that it is the result we would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings.'"[1]

[*~283]4

We think such deference to the agency's interpretation of its governing statute is reinforced where, as here, the legislative history is silent, or at best unhelpful, with respect to the point in question. Congress in passing the Communications Act in 1934 could not, of course, anticipate the variety and nature of methods of communication by wire or radio that would come into existence in the decades to come. In such a situation, the expert agency entrusted with administration of a dynamic industry is entitled to latitude in coping with new developments in that industry.

5

The Commission, responsive to the increasing impact of CATV, has undertaken a system of regulation in the public interest. It began with the CATV systems served by microwave carriers,[2] and it now has asserted jurisdiction over all CATV systems under the general provisions of the Act, and issued regulations.[3] The Commission had already announced proposed rules, predicated on such jurisdiction, at the time it dismissed petitioners' complaint.[4] Its holding that CATV systems are not common carriers thus comes before us in a context of regulation of the CATV systems under different provisions of the Communications Act. In a statutory scheme in which Congress has given an agency various bases of jurisdiction and various tools with which to protect the public interest, the agency is entitled to some leeway in choosing which jurisdictional base and which regulatory tools will be most effective in advancing the Congressional objective. It is the FCC's position that regulating CATV systems as adjuncts of the nation's broadcasting system is a more appropriate avenue for Commission action than the wide range of regulation implicit in the common carrier treatment urged by petitioners. This seems to us a rational and hence permissible choice by the agency.[5]

[*~284]6

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 800, (1965), quoting Unemployment Compensation Comm. of Territory of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 153, 67 S.Ct. 245, 91 L.Ed. 136, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1946). See also Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 408, 81 S.Ct. 1529, 6 L.Ed.2d 924 (1961); Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 350, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1933); Born v. Allen, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 223, 291 F.2d 345, 351 (1960)

2

Carter Mountain Transmission Corp., 32 F.C.C. 459 (1962), affirmed, 116 U.S. App.D.C. 93, 321 F.2d 359, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951, 84 S.Ct. 442, 11 L.Ed.2d 312 (1963)

3

SeeSecond Report and Order, Dockets No. 14895, 15233, 15971 (March 4, 1966).

4

Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking re All CATV Systems, Docket No. 15971, 1 F.C.C.2d 453 (April 22, 1965).

5

We of course do not pass judgment on the validity of the broad jurisdictional base asserted by the Commission in itsNotice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking of April 1965, and in the recently issued rules with respect to all CATV systems. See 1 F.C.C.2d at 478-82. But the basis is already established insofar as microwave-served CATV systems are concerned. Carter Mountain Transmission Corp. v. FCC, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 93, 321 F.2d 359, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951, 84 S.Ct. 442, 11 L.Ed.2d 312 (1963); Idaho Microwave, Inc. v. FCC, 122 U.S. App.D.C. ___, 352 F.2d 729 (1965). Certainly the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over CATV systems by its order of March 4, 1966, is substantial enough to serve as a basis for declining to regulate them as common carriers.