Broadcasting (Oct 1931-Dec 1932)

Whys and Wherefores of Radio Legislation By SENATOR WALLACE WHITE, Jr.* Co-Author of Radio Law, Lauding Broadcasters, Repudiates plies t0 an application for the re „ . . 1 t» /-ii * newal of a license as fully as to an rrionty and Property Claims; Calls Wave Grabs Unsound ori^inal application, tws was a complete reversal of the rule of the COURT decisions and the opinion of the Attorney General, rendered in July, 1926, confirmed our 1924 view as to the proper construction of the 1912 law, and made known to all the absence of essential governmental authority. There followed the rush for licenses, the disregard of power limitations, of assigned frequencies and of time for operation, which so acutely emphasized the weaknesses and deficiencies of the 1912 law and the urgent necessity for new radio legislation. ' From this break down of regulation of those days came the Radio Act of 1927* This Act in its short span of life has justified itself. There have been but two important changes in the law since its enactment. The Federal Radio Commission which by the original Act had appellate jurisdiction only is now a body with original authority. There has been added also to the original Act the Davis^mendment. This amendment made mandatory that distribution of services clearly intended by the 1927 Act. It is within the truth to say that all that has been done under the mandate of the Davis amendment could have been done by the Commission under the original law. The old law had the virtue of flexibility. The amendment is arbitrary. The amendment became necessary, however, because of the failure of the Commission to meet the responsibility imposed upon it to work out the distribution of stations and services as directed by the original Act. Most of the evils prophesized of its enactment have not come upon us. Notwithstanding its rigidity, the want of balance in the zoning system set up, the difficulty, if not impossibility, of harmonizing its terms with technical considerations, the amendment has served a useful purpose. The time may come when its arbitrary provisions will be relaxed and we will rely for the desired distribution of services upon more general language under which the purpose of the amendment may be secured with less affront to technical considerations. It is my opinion, how AN NBC TRIUMVIRATE— Left to right: Don Withycomb, manager of station relations; Frank M. Russell, Washington vice president, and K. W. Berkeley, manager, WRC, Washington. ever, that, for the present, the Congress will not repeal this amendment. STATION CHIEFTAINS — Left to right: Leo Fitzpatrick, general manager, WJR, Detroit; Walter J. Preston, director, WBBM, Chicago, and A. Z. Moore, president, WKJC, Lancaster, Pa. ♦Excerpts from address by Senator White, of Maine, formerly chairman of House Committee in charge of radio legislation, before Detroit Convention of National Association of Broadcasters, October 26. When the zones were established the definite allocation principle of the Davis Amendment was not in mind. That came later. It would ON THE LINKS — At the Detroit Convention golf tournament, left to right: Paul Morency, manager, WTIC, Hartford; Edwin M. Spence, manager, WPG, Atlantic City, and H. D. Hayes, U. S. Radio Supervisor, Chicago. 1912 Act. Around this new principle the whole 1927 law may be said to revolve.* Another fundamental change was in the term of licenses. There was no language in the 1912 Act limiting the life of a license. The Department of Commerce in practice issued them for definite periods, but clearly if the law fixed no limit and if it conferred no right to fix a limit, the right to limit did not exist in the Department. Licenses were, therefore, indeterminate, good until Congress otherwise provided. And Congress, in this 1927 Act, did so otherwise provide. The very first section declared that no person could operate a station included within the terms of the Act, except under and in accordance with the Act and the terms of a license granted under it. That cut off the old licenses and compelled all to seek licenses under the new law, which fixed a positive and definite limitation upon their life. In place then of licenses of indeterminate length, we substituted licenses of limited time. This principle likewise was a basic change effected by the new law. A further purpose of the 1927 law was to make certain, so far as it could be done, that a license acquired as against the government no property right in the frequency assigned or any other right, beyond that given by the license itself. This thought finds expression in various forms in many sections of the Act. It is a purpose, Then Congress included in the 1927 Act a number of provisions, not found in the 1912 law, aimed against monopoly. On the whole (Continued on page 83) have been better had the two been considered together. Some of the objections urged against the allocation amendment might be avoided through zone changes. Amendments in this direction might well be favorably considered at this time. *If I were asked what was the outstanding feature of purpose of the law, I should have to name several. First of all, it sought to make clear that no person had an absolute right to a license. Under the 1912 Act an applicant received his license as a matter of right. The 1927 Act rejected this principle. By its terms the grant of a license is no longer a matter of individual desire, of individual right. Instead, the individual interest is subordinated to the public interest and the individual may receive a license only upon the finding by the Commission that the public interest will be served by the operation of the proposed station. This rule ap November I, 1931 • BROADCASTING Page 9