The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., sided with the FCC Tues. against a ...
The U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., sided with the FCC Tues. against a challenge to a decision to open certain rural cellular licenses for auction. Ranger Cellular argued that Sec. 309(l) of the Communications Act, which didn’t allow the Commission…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to accept new applications for certain commercial radio or TV stations, also covered cellular licenses. That was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which also included Sec. 309(j), which required the FCC to use competitive bidding and ended its ability to use a lottery system for awarding most spectrum licenses. Ranger had told the court that cellphone service providers were “commercial radio” or TV stations that fell under Sec. 309(l), meaning the Commission couldn’t accept new applications. Ranger had filed applications in the late 1980s to compete in a lottery for certain rural service area cellular licenses. Before the FCC decided how to award those licenses, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which essentially phased out its lottery system. That law stipulated that “competing applications for initial licenses or construction permits for commercial radio or television stations” filed at the FCC before July 1, 1997, should be treated as the only applicants eligible as qualified bidders under that proceeding. The court said that language barred the FCC from accepting new applications for covered “commercial radio” or TV stations. The FCC rejected Ranger arguments that cellphone providers were included in the provision for commercial radio or TV stations and moved forward with an auction in June 2002. The court said the FCC had shown that Sec. 309(l) could be read as covering only broadcast stations. “Although this reading is not the only possible interpretation of Sec. 309(l), it is certainly a reasonable one and therefore commands our deference,” the court said. It also didn’t side with public interest arguments raised by Ranger, including allegations that the Commission had failed to consider factors such as the length of time the original applications had been pending -- 13-14 years. “We think the Commission reasonably applied appropriate factors to the circumstances of the case,” the court said. The case was decided unanimously by the 3-judge panel, which included Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg and Judges Harry Edwards and Merrick Garland.