Communications Act of 1934

The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.

The stated purposes of the Act are "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

On January 3, 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States amended or repealed sections of the Communications Act of 1934 with the new Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was the first major overhaul of American telecommunications policy in nearly 62 years.

Brief history of the Act

The Act largely combined and reorganized existing provisions of law, including provisions of the Federal Radio Act of 1927 relating to radio licensing, and of the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 relating to telephone service.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, requested the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interdepartmental committee for studying electronic communications. The Committee reported that "the communications service, as far as congressional action is involved, should be regulated by a single body." A recommendation was made for the establishment of a new agency that would regulate all interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio, telegraphy, telephone and broadcast. On February 26, 1934, the President sent a special message to Congress urging the creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The following day Senator Dill and Representative Sam Rayburn of Texas introduced bills to carry out this recommendation. The Senate Bill (S.3285) passed the House on June 1, 1934, and the conference report was adopted by both houses eight days later. The Communications Act was signed by President Roosevelt on June 1934. Particular parts of it became effective July 1, 1934; other parts on July 11, 1934. And thus the FCC was born.

The communications act of 1934 followed the precedents of trial cases set under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), regulating commerce "among the several states". In 1914 the Supreme Court case in Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States set limits on price discrimination that were effectively interstate commerce. The railway was setting lower prices for intrastate carriers within Texas while charging more for carriers that were going through or out of the state. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, and maximum prices were set to limit the damage that other states could face due to price discrimination.

Communications technology was determined to be an interstate good. President Franklin Roosevelt, along with lobbyists and state regulators, wanted communications technology, both wired and wireless to be monitored in a similar way and influenced Congress to pass the Communications Act of 1934. The goal was to have telephone and broadcasting regulated with the same jurisdiction in a way similar to that in which the ICC regulates the railways and interstate commerce. The act did not, however, allow for price regulation through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) due to strong lobbying efforts from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).

Currently there are some challenges and proposed changes to the Act. The company CellAntenna has sued the FCC claiming that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 did override the Communications Act of 1934. As the law stands today, the 1934 Communications Act prohibits local and state law enforcement from using jamming devices to thwart criminal and terrorist acts. CellAntenna lost their case, but as a response have supported legislation (The Safe Prisons Communications Act) sponsored by Texas Senator Kay-Bailey Hutchinson and Representative Kevin Bradley; the bill attempting to amend the Communications Act of 1934 was left in committee in the House.

In addition, there is talk about the need for an Internet Kill Switch or as it is more officially known as The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act. This act removes the powers established in the 1934 Act and gives the President the authority to stop the Internet in case of a cyber attack.

Structure

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, consists of seven major sections or "titles":

• Title I - General Provisions.
• Title II - Common carriers.
• Title III - Provisions related to radio.
• Title IV - Procedural and administrative provisions.
• Title V - Penal Provisions; Forfeitures.
• Title VI - Cable Communications.
• Title VII -Miscellaneous Provisions. Title VI was added by 1984 Cable Franchise Policy and Communications Act.

Debates

Commercial radio debate

Before the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted as law by the U.S. Congress, there was a debate over commercial versus non-commercial broadcasting: Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Henry Hatfield of West Virginia offered an amendment to the then proposed Communications Act. Educators wanted more of radio to be given to them; they had been termed a "special interest" by the Federal Radio Commission and their stations were forced to share frequencies. The Wagner-Hatfield amendment would have given 25% of all radio broadcasting facilities to non-profit institutions and organizations. It would also have allowed these educational stations to sell advertising in order to become self-sufficient. Senator C.C. Dill, a pro-industry spokesman opposed this amendment. It would have meant eliminating numerous commercial stations, but that is not what Dill publicly complained about. He expressed horror over the advertising. He said there was too much advertising already. Not all educators supported the advertising clause, so a compromise was struck. The issue was to be given to the new Federal Communications Commission to study and to hold hearings on and to report back to Congress. Hatfield and Wagner stuck to their guns, however, and proposed their amendment anyway. The Hatfield-Wagner amendment died and the Communications Act was passed.

The Federal Communications Commission reported back, saying that commercial stations had ample time for educational and other public service programs. The Commission called for cooperation between commercial and educational interests and other non-profit groups. The educators lost, though commercial broadcasters were forced to air public affairs programs.

Chain (network) case

The United States Supreme Court held in National Broadcasting Co. Inc. et al. v. United States et al., 319 U.S. 190 on May 10, 1943 that the FCC had the right to issue regulations pertaining to associations between broadcasting networks and their affiliated stations. The Opinion of the Supreme Court was not unanimous and it led to a conflict with an earlier decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, on March 25, 1940.

In that case the FCC interpreted Supreme Court decisions concerning broadcasting to mean that potential economic injury to an existing licensee was not grounds for refusing to license a competitor. (This FCC interpretation remained in place from 1940 to 1958.)

The Opinion of the Supreme Court was delivered by Felix Frankfurter with Justices Hugo Black and Wiley Blount Rutledge taking no part in the discussion or decision. Justice Frank Murphy offered a dissenting Opinion by stating that the Court was effectively giving the FCC a power to regulate networks which had not been given to the FCC by Congress. Murphy stated that;

... we exceed our competence when we gratuitously bestow upon an agency power which the Congress has not granted. Since that is what the Court in substance does today, I dissent.

Because the majority of the Court did not agree with Murphy it effectively gave the FCC power to regulate the networks. As a result of this 1943 decision, NBC was forced to sell one of its two networks (its Blue Network) and it was this action which then led to the creation of the American Broadcasting Company

Overhaul of FCC policy

The 1934 Communications Act remained in place but was amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Communication Act as Technologically Biased

Communications Act of 1934 is technologically biased because standards what determine regulation are technological properties:cable and radio, wire and wireless for instance. It makes discriminations in same content on different medium.

Telecommunication Act 1996

The biggest differences with Communications act of 1934 are these two: no technological biased and deregulation for a pro-competitive. Communication Acts of 1934 caused side-effects about monopoly. AT&T case is the one of famous example of this. FCC recognized AT&T as a "natural monopoly" during 1930s.

See also

• COPE Act of 2006 (Communications Act of 2006)
• Telecommunications Act of 2005 (Communications Act of 2006)
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Comcast Corp. v. FCC

References

• A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934, by Paglin, Max D. - Oxford University Press, New York. 1989.
• Brinkley Act - Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 that was written into law in an attempt to halt live broadcasting from radio studios in the United States linked to high-powered border-blaster transmitters on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo), international border, via telephone land lines. This provision was carried through into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by incorporation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended to Section 325(c).
• Documents of American Broadcasting, by Kahn, Frank J. (Editor). - Meridith. 1968. - LoC Number: 68-8961

External links

• Communications Act of 1934, as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the Communications Act
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Cybertelecom :: Communications Act of 1934
• Communications Act of 1934