Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

06/13/63 Charles P. B. Pinson, Inc. v. Federal Communications

June 13, 1963




Before PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.


June 13, 1963.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 18, 1963.


J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Charles P. B. Pinson, Inc., wholly owned by Charles P. B. Pinson, appeals *fn1 from an order *fn2 of the Federal Communications Commission denying renewal of several common carrier radio station licenses. We affirm the order of the Commission.

Pinson is engaged in providing a very specialized radio communications service for persons such as doctors or repairmen who must operate away from their places of business and need a portable means of receiving messages. His basic operation consists of a telephone answering service and a master radio transmitter and receiver. With this equipment he provides two types of service. In so-called "one-way" service (also known as "pocket paging") the subscriber rents a small pocketsize receiver. At regular intervals the master station transmits a notice which tells the subscriber if any messages were received for him. If a message is indicated, the subscriber then telephones in to receive it. In so-called "two-way" service, the subscriber rents a portable receiver and transmitter. In this service the subscriber communicates with the master station by radio and receives his messages directly.

Pinson was licensed to operate three such stations in the Tampa - St. Petersburg area: KIG289 - a two-way operation in St. Petersburg, KIG843 - a one-way operation in St. Petersburg, and KIB386 - a two-way operation in Tampa. Pinson's father-in-law, James C. Fields, was licensed to operate KIK578 - a one-way operation in Tampa. This case arises out of an alleged improper transfer of control of Fields' station KIK578 to Pinson.

To understand the basis for the Commission action, it is necessary to review the manner in which the one-way licenses were originally obtained. In 1955 Pinson filed an application for a one-way station in St. Petersburg at 35.58 megacycles, and a one-way station in Tampa at 43.58 megacycles. When the Commission informally advised Pinson that both applications could not be granted to the same person without an evidentiary hearing, *fn3 Pinson dismissed the Tampa application and was granted a permit for the St. Petersburg station, designated KIG843.

In January, 1957, Fields, Pinson's 70-year-old father-in-law, filed an application for a new one-way station in Tampa at 43.58 megacycles, the frequency for which Pinson had previously applied. The application contained the usual recitals that the station would be under the control *fn4 of Fields. This station was licensed March 4, 1958, as KIK578.

Shortly thereafter, in the course of an investigation of television interference, it came to the attention of the Commission that Fields' Tampa station, KIK578, and Pinson's Tampa station, KIB386, had a common control point and that Pinson seemed to be operating both. The Commission then commenced an informal investigation to determine if Pinson had assumed control of Fields' station in violation of Section 310(b) *fn5 of the Federal Communications Act. While this investigation was still under way, Pinson's licenses on Stations KIG289, KIG843 and KIB386, and Fields' license on KIK578, expired and both Pinson and Fields filed applications for renewal. In view of the facts disclosed in the prior investigation, the Commission designated the applications for renewal for hearing, primarily on the character qualifications of the applicants. The Commission concluded that both Pinson and Fields were disqualified from holding licenses because of false statements made to the Commission in the original application for Station KIK578 and in the later investigation of the § 310(b) violation. Only Pinson has appealed, alleging four points of error. I.

Section 308(b) *fn6 of the Act requires the applicant for renewal to submit proof of good character. In weighing Pinson's proof of good character, the Commission considered the deliberate misrepresentations made to it by Pinson which concealed the § 310(b) violation. Pinson contends that this consideration is "foreign to the question of character qualifications." Appellant's contention is frivolous on its face. II.

Appellant further complains that the Commission improperly placed the burden of proof upon him to show that he was qualified to hold a license. He contends that these proceedings, though termed renewal, resulted in the revocation of his licenses and that in revocation proceedings the burden of proof is upon the Commission to show disqualification. The statute, however, shows beyond doubt that the Commission action was correct.

As we have said, these licenses had expired, or were expiring, and this was a proceeding seeking their renewal. Section 309(b) of the Act, *fn7 as it was then in effect, stated: ". . . [The] burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence upon any issue specified by the Commission, as well as the burden of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.