## Facts

- Community antenna television (CATV) operators received broadcast television signals, amplified them, and retransmitted them to subscribers by cable or microwave, typically charging fees and not producing their own programming.
- The CATV industry grew rapidly, increasingly importing signals from one broadcast market into another and affecting local broadcasters.
- Although the FCC initially stated it did not plan to regulate CATV and sought legislation, it later adopted rules (1965) governing CATV carriage of local signals, non-duplication, and limits on importing distant signals into the largest markets (with grandfathering and waivers).
- Midwest Television, a San Diego broadcast licensee, sought FCC relief alleging CATV operators were importing Los Angeles signals into San Diego and harming Midwest’s station contrary to the public interest.
- Pending hearings, the FCC ordered respondents’ CATV systems to halt expansion into areas they had not served as of February 15, 1966.
- The Ninth Circuit set aside the FCC order, holding the Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC no jurisdiction over CATV; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether CATV operations constitute “interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio” within the Communications Act of 1934.
2. Whether the FCC may regulate CATV, despite the Act’s lack of express CATV provisions, under implied or ancillary authority tied to its broadcasting responsibilities.
3. Whether the FCC’s interim restriction on CATV expansion was within the Commission’s lawful authority under the Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the FCC’s authority to regulate CATV and to issue the challenged restriction on expansion.
- The Court held CATV falls within the Act’s broad coverage of interstate communications by wire or radio, and CATV activity involves interstate transmission of broadcast signals.
- The Court concluded the FCC may regulate CATV when such regulation is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the FCC’s responsibilities for regulating television broadcasting.
- The Court rejected reliance on the FCC’s earlier reluctance to regulate and on Congress’s failure to enact proposed CATV legislation as proof of no existing authority.
- The decision was unanimous in outcome; Justice Harlan wrote the Court’s opinion; Justice White concurred in the result; Justices Douglas and Marshall did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory grants to regulate communications “in the public interest, convenience, or necessity” may authorize regulation of practices not expressly enumerated when needed to carry out the statute’s objectives.
- The FCC may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over services and practices affecting broadcasting if the regulation is reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s assigned responsibilities.
- Absent compelling evidence of contrary congressional intent, administrative action necessary to achieve an agency’s statutory purposes should not be treated as prohibited.
- Legislative inaction and an agency’s prior self-restraint or requests for additional legislation are weak indicators of the scope of authority already conferred by statute.
- Ancillary authority is not unlimited; it extends only as far as the connection to the agency’s specific statutory responsibilities.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained FCC regulation of CATV as an exercise of implied ancillary authority under the Communications Act, permitting measures tied to protecting and administering the federal broadcast-television system where reasonably connected to the Commission’s statutory responsibilities.


United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968)