Editing Communications Act of 1934 (section)

==History==
The Communications Act of 1934 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.

In 1933, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] asked [[Daniel C. Roper]], [[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, [[telegraph]]y, telephone and [[Radio broadcast|broadcast]].

On February 26, 1934, the President sent a special message to Congress urging the creation of the Federal Communications Commission&nbsp;(FCC). The following day Senator [[Clarence Dill]] and Representative [[Sam Rayburn]] 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 in June 1934. Particular parts of it became effective July 1, 1934; the remaining parts on July 11, 1934.<ref>[http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/communications_act.htm From History of Wire and Broadcast Communication, FCC (May 1993)]</ref>

The Communications Act of 1934 followed the precedents of trial cases set under the [[Commerce Clause]] of the [[U.S.&nbsp;Constitution]] ([[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article&nbsp;I]], [[Enumerated powers|Section&nbsp;8]], Clause&nbsp;3), regulating commerce "among the several states". Twenty years earlier, in 1914, the [[U.S.&nbsp;Supreme Court]] had set limits on price discrimination that were effectively [[interstate commerce]] in ''Houston, East & West Texas Railway&nbsp;Co. v. United States''. 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.<ref name="Kennedy 1998">{{cite journal|last=Kennedy|first=L. J.|author2=Purcell, H.A.|title=Section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934: A federal regulatory framework that is "hog tight, horse high, and bull strong"|journal=Federal Communications Law Journal|year=1998|volume=50|issue=3 |pages=547–604|url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/213194460/|access-date=April 12, 2011}}</ref>

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 FCC due to strong [[lobbying]] efforts from the [[National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners]] (NARUC).<ref name="Kennedy 1998"/>

Currently there are some challenges and proposed changes to the act. The company CellAntenna unsuccessfully sued<!--a date would be better--> the FCC, claiming the [[Homeland Security Act of 2002]] did override the Communications Act of 1934.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/Company-challenges-FCC-rules-on-cell-phone-jamming-gear/2100-1036_3-6139854.html Marguerite Reardon, "Company challenges FCC rules on cell phone-jamming gear"], CNET,  December 1, 2006;  accessed March 2, 2011.</ref>

The 1934 Communications Act prohibits local and state law enforcement from using [[Radio jamming|jamming]] devices to thwart criminal and terrorist acts. CellAntenna lost its case, but as a response have supported legislation (The Safe Prisons Communications Act) sponsored by Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] and Representative [[Kevin Brady]], attempting to amend the Communications Act of 1934. The bill was left in committee in the House.<ref>[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h560/show H.R.560 – Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009]; accessed October 30, 2017.</ref>

There has been public debate about the need for an [[Internet kill switch]], defined in a proposed Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.<ref>[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show S.3480 - Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010], at OpenCongress.org</ref> 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.

The act forbids foreign individuals, governments, and corporations owning more than 20% of the capital stock of a broadcast, common carrier, or radio station.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical#:~:text=Section%20310(b)(3,or%20aeronautical%20radio%20station%20licensee. | title=Foreign Ownership Rules and Policies for Common Carrier, Aeronautical en Route and Aeronautical Fixed Radio Station Licensees | date=September 10, 2013 }}</ref> In 2013 the FCC relaxed these rules.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=2014 |title=FCC relaxes rules rule limiting foreign ownership of media stations |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/14/the-next-rupert-murdoch-wont-have-to-change-his-citizenship-to-rule-the-tv-biz/ }}</ref>