Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

5 Avalanche Poised on Hill: Biggest-ever batch of bills directly affecting TV & radio was in sight for FCC & broadcasters as 86th Congress got under way this week. It included legislative proposals to implement sweeping reforms of Federal agencies demanded by House investigators (Vol. 15:1). Drafting of measures promised by Commerce Committee Chairman Harris (D-Ark.), who led oversight subcommittee in year-long probe of FCC practices, was not yet completed. He said he wanted to give priority to another pet proposal — a ban on broadcast pay TV. And House Committee itself was not yet reorganized for session which is sure to bring new probes of broadcasting fields. Trickle of what is expected to be avalanche of bills on broadcasting was already started by others in House, however. On Senate side, where wrangle over rules on filibusters delayed stax't of legislative process, few bills had been introduced at our press time, but pile-up there will begin next week. First order of broadcast legislative business on House side is expected to be hearings on pay TV which Commerce Committee is scheduled to start before end of Jan., probably followed by Senate Commerce hearings on same subject. As of now. Senate Committee plans to open hearing season with resumption of crusade by Sen. Monroney (D-Okla.) against TV rating systems — probably in N. Y. in late Jan. or early Feb. Harris bill to prohibit FCC licensing of any broadcast pay-TV system will be introduced Jan. 12. Beating him to gun on opening day of new session with similar House measures were Chairman Celler (D-N.Y.) of Judiciary Committee and Rep. Lane (D-Mass.). Both Celler ’s measui’e (HR-68) and Lane’s bill (HR166) would “prohibit the charging of a fee to view telecasts in the home.” They were the vanguard of the new flock of anti-pay-TV bills whose predecessors were stilled last session when resolutions by Senate & House Commerce Committees held up FCC tests pending action at this session. Ready to be introduced next week is companion Senate bill by Sen. Thurmond (D-S.C.), leading opponent of pay TV last year in Senate Commerce Committee, whose Chairman Magnuson (D-Wash.) is an advocate. Other early bills on House side — where office of House bill clerk was trying to catch up at week’s end with tabulation of more than 2000 dropped in hopper on first day — included : Federal aid to educational TV measure (HR-32) by Rep. Boggs (D-La.), reinstating last session’s plan to grant up to $1,000,000 in govt, funds to each state & territory for purchase of ETV equipment. Sen. Magnuson and Rep. Udall (D-Ariz.), co-sponsors of $51,000,000 program last year, when it passed Senate but died before reaching House floor, also had bills ready. Perennial (but so far hopeless) bill (HR-51) by Rep. Boland (D-Mass.) to exempt uhf receiving sets from Federal excise tax. Other old subjects certain to be covered by new bills (by Celler, for one) include anti-trust exemptions for professional sports .to permit agreement by club owners on blackout of telecasts of some games. Sen. Langer (R-N.D.) will again dust off his measure to ban liquor advertising from TV, radio and all other interstate media. Direct FCC regulation of networks — pet project of defeated Sen. Bricker (R-0.) — may have a new advocate in Sen. Douglas (D-111.). And when bills based on House oversight subcommittee’s report begin flowing from Harris and his Commerce Committee — covering everything from agency codes of ethics and ex parte influence to payoffs for FCC license contestants — session really will be under way for TVradio industry. General ethics bill hit hopper early. Note: Staff of Celler’s Judiciary anti-trust subcommittee has issued Parts III-V of scholarly study of “Federal Conflict of Interest Legislation.” Buttressing oversight subcommittee’s conclusions that agencies need a law to guide their conduct, anti-trust repoi’t singles out FCC for particular attention: “It is regrettable that legislative prodding should still be necessary to induce this agency to adopt a code of ethics.” How lo Protect Local TV: Cox Report on small town TV (p. 2) belabors FCC brusquely but its final recommendations recognize that the Commission still has to administer law on a broad “public interest” basis. Report says that FCC should : “(1) Recognize and accept its duty to effect a nationwide TV system, making appropriate use of all available devices & facilities. “(2) If it lacks adequate authority over any of these elements, seek the necessary power from Congress during the coming session. “(3) Lay down clear rules applicable to the respective elements of the TV industry so that all may know exactly where they stand and none may resort to unfair competitive practices which will ultimately impair the service available to the public. “(4) Develop a schedule of pi’iorities [for] the various forms of service available, taking due account of such factors as local service, broad coverage, multiple program choices, and cost to the viewer. “(5) Apply the broad public interest standards of the Communications Act to each case in order to arrive at the best solution in terms of the general public interest in each community, which will necessarily involve consideration of the economic impact on competing services and the decision of conflicts between mutually exclusive values or interests.” ❖ Jj: * :f: Protection of conventional stations, with their potential of providing coverage of local interest, is theme of entire report. Thus, FCC is criticized for pei’mitting community antennas, translators or boosters to bring out-oftown signals to communities with local stations — even if it means public gets choice of signals. This is “a parody on local service,” report states, insisting that a single locally-produced signal is preferable to several signals piped from big cities. Report gives rather grudging recognition to translators, compared with vhf boosters, for serving small towns. It claims translators are too costly at both transmission and reception ends. Cox appears fairly well satisfied cheap vhf boosters can be authorized by FCC; that they won’t cause intolerable interference. Commission disagrees, of course, as indicated by denial of authorization to boosters last week (Vol. 15:1). Though bills may be intro