47 U.S.C. § 314

Competition in commerce; preservation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

After the effective date of this chapter no person engaged directly, or indirectly through any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect common control with, such person, or through an agent, or otherwise, in the business of transmitting and/or receiving for hire energy, communications, or signals by radio in accordance with the terms of the license issued under this chapter, shall by purchase, lease, construction, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, acquire, own, control, or operate any cable or wire telegraph or telephone line or system between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States or in the District of Columbia, and any place in any foreign country, or shall acquire, own, or control any part of the stock or other capital share or any interest in the physical property and/or other assets of any such cable, wire, telegraph, or telephone line or system, if in either case the purpose is and/or the effect thereof may be to substantially lessen competition or to restrain commerce between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, and any place in any foreign country, or unlawfully to create monopoly in any line of commerce; nor shall any person engaged directly, or indirectly through any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect common control with, such person, or through an agent, or otherwise, in the business of transmitting and/or receiving for hire messages by any cable, wire, telegraph, or telephone line or system (a) between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, and any place in any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States; or (b) between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and any place in any foreign country, by purchase, lease, construction, or otherwise, directly or indirectly acquire, own, control, or operate any station or the apparatus therein, or any system for transmitting and/or receiving radio communications or signals between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, and any place in any foreign country, or shall acquire, own, or control any part of the stock or other capital share or any interest in the physical property and/or other assets of any such radio station, apparatus, or system, if in either case the purpose is and/or the effect thereof may be to substantially lessen competition or to restrain commerce between any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, and any place in any foreign country, or unlawfully to create monopoly in any line of commerce.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1938–1978 · leading case: The Superior Oil Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 322 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1963).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Superior Oil Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 322 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1963). “Seeking to distinguish Storer, Superior points out that section 314 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 314 , expressly forbids ownership or control of stations where the purpose or the effect thereof might be to substantially lessen competition or to restrain…”

MacKay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 97 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1938). “Section 314 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 314 , is devoted wholly tc ail effort to maintain competition between radio circuits on the one hand and telegraph and cable lines on the other.”

Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377 (1948). “1087 , 47 U. S. C. §314 ; 44 Stat. 568 , 572, 573, 49 U.”

Metro Cable Co. v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. Ill. 1974). “2d 325 (1967); 47 U.S.C. § 314 ; 47 C.F.R. part 76; 38 F.”

W. Union Int'l, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 544 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “It could, therefore, by coordinating both aspects of its business, seriously damage the interests of competing international carriers, contrary to 47 U.S.C. § 314 . These Senate recommendations were embodied in S.”

Rca Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 201 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1953). “…. . Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. United States, 1931, 283 U.S. 35 , 51 S.Ct. 337 , 75 L.Ed. 824 . . 48 Stat. 1087 (1934), 47 U.S.C.A. § 314 .”

Network Proj. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 511 F.2d 786 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “See also 47 U.S.C. § 314 ). Petitioner requested in each case five types of relief, set forth in full in the margin, 6 and also requested a public hearing on the question of whether each application was in accord with the public convenience, interest, or necessity.”

Midwest Video Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 571 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1978). “47 U.S.C. § 314 (1970), as amended by Act of Oct.”

Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377 (1948). “1087 , 47 U.S.C. § 314 ; 44 Stat. 568 , 572, 573, 49 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.