We would point out that recognition of the principle of public benefit does not bring the broadcasting stations into the category of recognized public utilities. The owners of broadcasting stations have not dedicated them to public use in a legal sense, and such matters as regulation of rates and other similar features of supervision exercised by governmental bodies over public utilities generally, should still, in the judgment of your committee, remain under the exclusive control of the station owners. In many respects these provisions are inapplicable to broadcasting stations by their very nature; and, in any event, we do not believe the time has come for their imposition. While the conclusion must be that, excepting the commercial point-to-point stations, radio communication has not reached the public utility stage and perhaps will not, this does not mean that regulation cannot be enforced whenever necessary. If the regulation of rates or service is advisable in the public interest, full power to provide it will be found in the Federal government under the commerce clause,1 the effect of which would, in any event, impose serious limitations on state authority. 1 As to authority of Interstate Commerce Commission, see p. 51. CHAPTER VII CONFLICTING RIGHTS IN RECEPTION AND The value of a transmitting station depends primarily upon the clearness and intelligibility of its communication. If the signal is not intelligible or is interrupted or disturbed, the worth of the station is impaired to that extent. The receiving set operates only to complete the communication, and if its functions cannot be carried on because of extraneous disturbances, its utility is destroyed and the transmission rendered futile. Clarity is the first essential to radio communication, just as it is in wire telephony or telegraphy. The crowding of the ether channels, the struggle of innumerable signals for supremacy, and the intrusion of noises from outside sources cause great annoyance and give rise to conflicting claims for precedence both on the part of the listener and the transmitter. In radio parlance, these disturbances have received the designation of "interference," a term which has come to mean any extraneous communication or sound created in a receiving set to the exclusion or impairment of the one desired. When caused by atmospheric conditions, the disturbing noise is called "static," but whether made by man or by nature, the molestation is equally annoying. It may be intense enough to destroy all reception entirely, may only impair it, or may affect only communications on certain wavelengths. Its source is always electrical, but it may have many varying causes. Sources of Interference. A considerable part of radio interference comes from non-radio sources, as has already been pointed out.1 But 1 See p. 84. disturbances may come from the transmitting stations themselves, one interfering with the communications of the other. Ordinarily, this occurs when two stations operate on the same frequency or on frequencies not sufficiently separated, considering their radiating powers and relative distances from the listener. If the same frequency is used and each of the stations is within the range of audibility, the receiving set brings in the program of each simultaneously, and the resulting cross-talk is the same as the occasional double conversation heard on a telephone line. If the stations are using different frequencies insufficiently separated, or practically the same frequency, when the listener is beyond the range of intelligible audibility, the result may be a whistle-like sound in the receiver, which is called a heterodyne tone. Cross-talk and heterodynes are equally disturbing and give rise to identical legal inquiries. A station may emit harmonics, that is, send out not only the true frequency, but also one or more others simultaneously, thus causing interference on the additional waves. This ordinarily is the result of inadequate equipment or improper operation. Another form of interference affects reception generally rather than that upon definite wavelengths. It is known as "blanketing." A station of high power may send out so intrinsically strong an emission over a certain area as to drown out all other transmission and make the reception of any other station difficult or impossible on the average receiver. The effect varies with the power of the station, its frequency, and the distance and selection efficiency of the receiving apparatus. The desire to minimize it has caused the tendency on the part of the larger stations to select locations outside of cities, so that any blanketing may affect as few listeners as possible. But the effect always exists, though its amount varies. Certain classes of receiving sets may cause disturbance. Some regenerative apparatus may be so operated as to radiate energy, becoming in fact a transmitter, its radiation appearing in other receiving sets in the form of disturbing squeals and whistles. Material improvement in radio apparatus and practice is lessening this form of annoyance, but in the past it has been a material element in the sum total of interference. Sender or Receiver May Complain. Interference may be considered from the viewpoint of the transmitter whose messages and business are disturbed or the listener whose reception is destroyed or impaired. Either the station owner or the listener might become the complainant against the alleged wrongdoer. There should be no legal difference between the right to send and the right to receive; yet there may be circumstances in special cases which require a differentiation between them. The right of the state to legislate on the general subject has already been discussed. There is practically nothing in the way of statutory provisions at present. We are now considering only the question of relative rights as between the interferer and the person disturbed, and as to whether legal remedies may be invoked and redress obtained through court action by the party injured. Both Parties in Lawful Occupation. Although some legal rules will be found applicable only to certain of the various interference classes, there are general principles which apply to all, and which should first be considered. The characteristic feature of the situation presents a conflict between individuals, each of whom is carrying on a legitimate activity. It is not a case of an obvious wrongdoer performing an act denounced by law, custom, or good morals to the injury of his neighbor. The persons causing the interference, whether he is engaged in radio communication or is using some electrical device for a noncommunication purpose, is in a lawful business within his inherent rights. He is using his own property for his own lawful purposes. The person using his property for radio communication and suffering the disturbance, whether on the sending or receiving end, is equally within his rights and his acts are legal and proper. There is lawful action on each side, and the question for determination is the relationship between them and whether one must yield if both cannot stand. Rule of "Sic Utere Tuo." The situation is not novel in principle. It has arisen before, and has given rise to the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedis, (so use your own property as not to injure the rights of another).1 Every person shall so use and enjoy his own property, however absolute and unqualified his title, as not to impair the enjoyment of others having an equal right to theirs.2 It is the first and most imperative obligation entering into the social compact, although it involves restrictions upon the so-called natural rights of individuals. It can never deprive an owner of a reasonable and prudent use of his own property, nor does it mean that one must always use his own so as never to do injury to his neighbor. Such a rule could not be enforced in civilized society. The application of the doctrine has been a "source of judicial tribulation in American courts."6 5 The general principle applicable is interestingly discussed in a New York case as follows:7 By becoming a member of civilized society, I am compelled to give up many of my natural rights, but I receive more than a compensation, from the surrender, by every other man, of the same rights, and the security, advantage, and protection which the laws give me. So, too, the general rules that I may have the exclusive and undisturbed use and 1 Hitchman Coal and Coke Company v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 254. 2 People v. Truckee Lumber Company, 116 Cal. 397, 58 Am. St. Rep. 183, 186. 3 Des Moines v. Manhattan Oil Company, 184 N. W. 823, 23 A. L. R. 1322. 4 JOYCE, "Nuisances," Sec. 32. 5. Campbell v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568, 20 Am. Rep. 567, 572. * O'Day v. Shouvlin, 104 Oh. St. 519, 136 N. E. 289, 25 A. L. R. 980, 984. Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476, 10 Am. Rep. 623. |