Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

GOVERNMENT HOUSE LETTERS SLOW TOLL TV DRIVE Rep. Harris asks FCC tough questions it will take time to answer THE forward momentum toward early FCC authorization of subscription television tests [B»T, April 1] was arrested last week — and it appeared that the subject of public pay for television broadcasts may remain at a standstill for some time. The roadblock was a formidable sixpage letter to the FCC from Rep. Oren Harris (D-Ark.), chairman of the radiopowerful House Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee. Mr. Harris raised "constitutional" questions regarding the principle of pay tv and strongly indicated that the FCC better come to Congress before it even approves tests of the pay-to-see systems. So significant did the Commission consider Mr. Harris' questions that it unanimously agreed at last Wednesday's meeting that nothing further should be done on pay tv until a conference is held with the Commerce Committee chairman. The commerce committees of Congress oversee the FCC and its communications functions. A meeting of the FCC and Rep. Harris may take place this week or next. In addition to Mr. Harris' letter, a request that the FCC delay any decision on fee tv was made by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N. Y.). Mr. Celler referred to proposed legislation he had introduced to forbid payment for telecasts viewed in the home (HR586). Mr. Celler said he had asked the House Commerce Committee to hold early hearings on the bill and, pending the outcome of these hearings, urged the FCC to withhold any tests [Closed Circuit, April 22]. And, the opponents of subscription tv won a powerful ally last week. The AFLCIO's President George Meany wired all members of the FCC that organized labor was opposed to pay tv. The AFL-CIO convention adopted a resolution against pay tv, Mr. Meany noted, and added that the authorization of subscription tv "would be against the public interest and would greatly curtail the use of the valuable medium of television." But it was the searching and incisive questions raised by the chairman of the House Commerce Committee that caused the Commission to suspend all consideration of pay tv until the Congressional inquiry was answered. Referring to FCC Chairman George C. McConnaughey's remarks at the NARTB convention that pay tv seemed more like a public utility than broadcasting or common carrier [B»T, April 15], Mr. Harris intimated that he agreed and that legislation may be necessary to amend the Communications Act to provide for this type of communications. The Communications Act provides for broadcasting and common carrier operations, but nothing characterized as a public utility. Mr. Harris warned that should pay tv Page 64 • April 29, 1957 prove successful, even under test authorizations, the FCC might find it impossible to recall its approval if it determined that it was against the public interest to have viewers pay for their programs. In other questions, Mr. Harris asked whether the Commission believed it had sufficient power to (1) control conditions under which equipment for decoding and collections are sold or rented to the public, (2) assure that licensees have adequate power to control the scrambled programs broadcast over stations, (3) ensure that no particular pay tv system secures a monopoly position. How about closed circuit pay tv? Mr. Harris asked. Has the FCC sufficient data to determine whether this might not be a more practical method of distributing encoded tv signals? He also asked the Commission to give him a breakdown of the REP. HARRIS REP. CELLER Writers Cramp FCC comments filed in the pay tv docket (it numbers in the tens of thousands), including the number of serious and informative statements from financially interested parties and how many are simply post-cards or brief letters from the public in general. Mr. Harris concluded with this admonishment: "I conclude from your [Chairman McConnaughey's] observations that the record before the Commission will contain ample and detailed evidence that the Commission has the legal power to contain and control this experiment in all of its various aspects or that you will, before launching it, come to Congress for the broad or specific powers in that regard which the Commission must have in order to protect the public interest." HERE is a slightly condensed text of the letter which Rep. Oren Harris wrote to the FCC Chairman George C. McConnaughey April 19: My dear Mr. Chairman: For some time our committee has been interested in the proposal which would authorize subscription television. We have been particularly interested in the consideration given by the Commission and its tenta tive decision recently for an experimental program. Your statement, according to the trade press, on a panel discussion at the NARTB convention in Chicago last week has prompted this letter in which I wish to raise some questions. You are quoted as saying, "We have difficulty in knowing just what it is; it's not quite a common carrier, yet it has many attributes of a public utility. I think some place along the line the Commission is going to have to go to Congress, and Congress is going to have to take some action in bringing this to fruition." I think your reference as to the public utility nature is quite appropriate. The Communications Act apparently grants to the Commission adequate powers over a public utility of a common carrier nature, but it appears that the Congress has not provided for regulating a public utility which is not a common carrier. This omission is understandable in view of the fact that subscription television or some such system of a public utility nature was not at the time of the enactment of the Act contemplated as a distinct possibility within the then foreseeable or immediate future, if, indeed, contemplated at all. In view of this situation, a series of questions occurs to me which I would like to have answered and which I think would be of interest to our Committee. (1) Section One of the Communications Act, in discussing the purposes of that act, begins with the following words: "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communications by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid efficient, nation-wide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service, etc." Section 303(g) of the act, commands the Commission to "Study new uses for radio, provide for experimental uses of frequencies," and generally encourage the "larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest." Obviously, Section 303, pertaining to the general powers of the Commission, is to be read consistently with Section One which contains the purposes of the act. I have no difficulty in considering subscription television as a new use of radio or television. I would have no trouble in regarding it as an additional source of programming made available "to all the people of the United States" and a "larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest" if multiplexing were so advanced that the viewer could take his choice between a free and a paid program, or if a closed circuit to homes were used so that the viewer could continue to have free access to all the stations which he is accustomed to receiving and he could, in addition thereto, turn to another station by pay Broadcasting • Telecasting