Broadcasting (Jan - Mar 1950)

CUBAN SHUFFLE Appointments Revive NARBA Optimism APPOINTMENT of a new toplevel slate of communications officials in Cuba delayed U. S.-Cuban negotiations on NARBA assignments again last week, but revived U. S. optimism for a successful outcome. President Carlos Prio Socarras announced the appointments in a Feb. 3 broadcast, one week after the surprise resignation of Com*-|munications Minister Arturo Illas ■t-iand the selection of Carlos Marist-jtany as acting minister [BroadUj CASTING, Feb. 6]. The appointments : Sergio Clark, a former minister iof communications, was returned to that post. ! Dr. Jose R. Gutierrez, head of j..|the Cuban delegation to the iijllj NARBA conference at Montreal J.jlast fall, was appointed deputy ' 'minister. Guillermo Morales, formerly intspector general of radio, was 3 named director of communications. '[ Ledo Antonio Marti, an engi beer, was made inspector general „f radio. Favorable Reaction jjU News of the appointments '[brought a generally favorable relit action in U. S. broadcasting quarj yters. It was greeted as an antidote a; ; for dampened spirits occasioned by r.i.the resignation of Mr. Illas and It * the temporary appointment of Mr. cMaristany, chairman of the 1946 •j.L;Cuban delegation which won substantial NARBA concessions. J^^ Mr. Maristany, it was reported, 'iiplans to run for election to the 'q I Cuban Congress from the Province ' I'iof Matanzas. ' ij; Mr. Clark, the new minister, is jj jjdescribed as an able executive who <jis generally respected by U. S. broadcasters. He was minister in ■^^,:1946, before the NARBA confer"' jence of that year was held. PROGRAM scheduling and other oroblems of "Mutual" interest comimanded the attention of these staition and network executives in Holcfywood recently after the Arizona ^Network aligned itself with Don LeetMutual. L. to r: Albert D. Johnson, Igeneral manager, KOY Phoenix; Pat '.ampbell, vice president in charge of istation relations, Don Lee, and John i].. Hogg, KOY president. Arizona ^i^etwork comprises KTUC Tucson, KSUN Bisbee and KOY. With the shakeup among radio officials, the negotiations between U. S. and Cuban delegations with respect to JSTARBA assignments was further delayed. Slated to open Feb. 1, the discussions had been delayed during the first week by the resignation of Mr. Illas. Authorities were hopeful late last week that the conferences could get into full swing and begin to show progress in the near future. Purpose of the sessions is to reach agreement on Cuban and U. S. channel rights. Differences on this score forced the current recess in the full NARBA conference last December when the U. S. rejected Cuban demands as being too far-reaching. The full conference is to resume in the U. S. at some time between April 1 and Sept. 1. Mexico, which has not participated up to now, has indicated a willingness to join the sessions if she is given time to prepare, which would indicate a resumption nearer Sept. 1 [Closed Circuit, Feb. 6]. Meanwhile, FCC Comr. Rosel H. Hyde, chairman of the U. S. delegation to Havana, and his colleagues were treated to a detailed exposition of Cuba's NARBA position as seen by Dr. Nicholas Mendoza, former director of radio. In a full-page article titled "NARBA, or The Case of the Dog in the Manger," which appeared in the Havana Post of Feb. 3, Dr. Mendoza said: "Since technical progress has not eliminated interference, Cuba proposes to retain the Sovereign Rights to use all channels, and insists on the conclusion of a Regional Agreement that will reduce interference to a minimum." Failure Cited Calling attention to U. S. failure to decide the long-pending clear-channel case, he asserted: ". . . while indecision reigns, the dog in the manger neither assimilates its clear channels, or allows Cuba to munch at them." Dr. Mendoza charged that the old NARBA's 650 mile rule "was nothing more than a clever subterfuge" to keep Cuba from using U. S. channels. He summed up Cuba's attitude toward U. S. clear channels as follows : . . . Cuba will respect adequate protection to the U. S. station's effective service area of today, in conformity with principles of good engineering, and as regulated by the Atlantic City Radio Regulations, but will simultaneously use their identical channels in Cuba, even if that implies placing a useful signal in Florida, because the stipulation not to use those channels was a self-imposed limitation valid only during the term of the contract, and NARBA's extension has expired. Will Cuba agree to accept similar limitations as to some of the old clear channels? Without a doubt, the answer is YES! Provided: That it finds it reasonable; that in so doing, it obtains guarantees that it can satisfy its broadcasting needs; that it arrives at that conclusion freely; and this can be achieved only across a conference table where the ebb and flow of give and take may seek its level in balanced compromise. Dr. Mendoza, who was one of the leaders in the original NARBA movement, said that since NARBA expired last March 29 "Cuba has not grabbed or assaulted the property of any other nation, nor of any of its citizens." Cuba has, he said, "made use, and is determined to continue making use of those facilities it needs." Warning Sounded He sounded an implied warning that Cuban demands now may be even farther reaching than those of the past. He noted that the requests Cuba made in 1945, in 1946, and in 1947 all fell short of those made at Montreal last fall. He said AM channel demands have virtually reached their peak in the U. S., but that "Cuba will need at least 10 years to reach a similar peak. From now on, while pressure for new facilities in the standard band will tend to decrease in the USA, the same pressure will continue increasing in Cuba." STATION CONTRACTS scotus Hits fcc THE SUPREME COURT made clear last week that FCC has no authority to meddle with the rights granted in contracts between radio stations and others. The Commission's disapproval of a contract, the court held, does not in itself invalidate the contract. The ruling came in a 7-0 decision upholding an award to Southern Broadcasting Stations Inc. in its suit against the Georgia School of Technology (WGST Atlanta) for recovery under a contract which FCC banned [BROADCASTING, June 13, Dec. 12, 1949]. In an opinion which also questioned FCC's handling of the case, Justice Stanley F. Reed wrote for the court: . . . Under the present statute, the Commission could make a choice only within the scope of its licensing power, i.e., to grant or deny the license on the basis of the situation of the applicant. It could insist that the applicant change its situation before it granted a license, but it could not act as a bankruptcy court to change that situation for the applicant. The public interest, after all, is in the effective use of the available channels, and only to that extent in what particular applicant receives a license. The Commission has said frequently that controversies as to rights be tween licensees and others are outside the ambit of its powers. We do not read the Communications Act to give authority to the Commission to determine the validity of contracts between licensees and others. "The Commission may impose on an applicant conditions which it must meet before it will be granted a license," the opinion said at another point, "but the imposition of the conditions cannot directly affect the applicant's responsibilities to a third party dealing with the applicant." 'Hard Choice' The Court recognized the "hard choice" which required FCC to condone violations of its rules by approving the license application, or else "deprive the public of the advantage of a station under the management of the [school's] Board of Regents." FCC legal authorities denied the ruling would affect FCC's famed Port Huron decision or other policy regulations, including relatively new rules banning station sales in which time is reserved as part of the sales price. The Port Huron decision prohibits censorship of political broadcasts but takes the position that iogi'SRO ADCASTING • Telecasting state libel laws will not apply since political censhorship is forbidden by the Communications Act in specific terms. Private attorneys contended the Supreme Court decision should at least have the effect of inducing FCC to proceed more cautiously in cases involving station contracts. They also felt the decision intensifies the broadcaster's dilemma. If the Commission approves a broadcaster's contract and then changes its mind, they said, the broadcaster would face (1) denial of license for failure to abrogate the contract, or (2) the possibility of being sued if he does abrogate it. They pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision leaves WGST in the same position which FCC in its decision had tried to avoid — that is, faced with liability under a contract which the Commission feared would endanger its financial stability. The contract, dra%vn up in 1943 to replace a management agreement to which FCC had objected, provided for the state-owned Georgia Tech to buy out the management group, SoutheiTi Broad( Continued on page 78) February 13, 1950 • Page 21