Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

NOT WANTED HERE A POLL taken by the Minneapolis Tribune shows that three-fourths of Minnesota tv homes are opposed to pay-see tv. Of the remaining quarter surveyed in the statewide poll. 19% favor "'some sort of subscription tv system in the U. S." while 2% give qualified judgment and 4% are undecided. Most objectors to pay tv. according to the Tribune, say either that they're satisfied with present tv programs or that they've already paid enough to buy and maintain sets and are against further expenditures. Eight out of ten homes in Minnesota are tv homes, the study indicated. The Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. owns 47% of WCCOAM-TV Minneapolis and 80% of KTVH (TV) Hutchinson. Kan. for our programs we could double or triple our profits, the pressures for subscription television could become intense and still the desires of the great majority of our people could be flaunted. Supposing, in addition to all those considerations, the courts were to rule that subscription television under the Communications Act is clearly not a common carrier and that, therefore, it comes under the ''broadcasting" provisions of the act. could not the courts then rule that anyone who applies for a license to broadcast encoded programs and meets the requirements exacted of those already authorized is entitled as a matter of right to such a license? Should this occur, the demise of free television as we know it today could be quickly accomplished and vested rights created before the Congress would be given an opportunity to remedy the situation. (4) Does the Commission feel that it has sufficient power through its licensees to control the conditions under which decoders or other gadgets are sold or leased to the public and to ensure that the purchasing public is put on notice that this is an experiment which can be terminated completely at any time or within two or three years (5) Does the Commission believe that it has adequate power through its licensees to ensure that the licensee maintains control over his programs and is free to carry programs from other sources than the particular sponsor of subscription television with whom he has a contract, which involves questions of distribution of decoders to prevent a monopoly and other problems? (6) Does the Commission feel that from the point of view of the harm to the public it matters a great deal whether the rival systems of subscription television are allowed to carve out respective territories for exclusive use of their systems or whether the Commission determines which territory or area is to be the monopoly of a particular system? (7) Has the Commission determined the validity of the claim that subscription television can be distributed to homes more cheaply through a closed circuit system in densely populated areas than through decoders or other systems? If that were true, this might present the more practical way of "experimenting" in subscription television in order to determine what contributions it can make as an additional source of programming without "blacking out" a station offering free television on the air. While the densely populated area might not exactly correspond with the other congested areas where pay television would otherwise be tried, they might provide an ideal testing ground. (8) I presume that whatever the Commission does will be supported by a thorough discussion of all aspects of these problems and particularly of the legal aspects in the record before the Commission, such as matters pertaining to program production and schedules, the price to be paid by the public for installation and maintenance by dealers, the distribution of proceeds, administrative matters such as how and when the public can get decoders, who in effect will determine which licensees can get pay television and which cannot, etc. Will you please inform me of the number of comments the Commission has received on this subject and. roughly, how many of these comments are serious and informative discussions by financially interested parties and how many are simply post-cards or brief letters from the public in general? You will recognize, I am sure, that the purpose of this letter is to commend you for your apt description of subscription television as a public utility and to respond to your suggestion that Congress wTill have to take some action in the matter. Your answer to the questions I have proposed will assist me and the Committee in our thinking upon these problems. I conclude from your 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. For my part, I assure you that our Committee or a Subcommittee thereof stands ready to consider promptly any legislation which would grant to the Commission any additional power which is needed in the premises with all the dispatch which the nature of the subject matter requires and warrants. Sincerely yours, Oren Harris. M. C. FTC Charges False Radio Ads THE FTC charged Siberian Fur Shop Inc.. Greenfield. Mass.. and its president. Abraham J. Levinsky. with false and deceptive advertising on WHYN Springfield. Mass.. and in local newspapers because. FTC claims, the ads failed to disclose the type of fur or that some of them were artificially colored. Hearing was set for July 2 in Greenfield. FCC Subpoenas Seven In Network Study Query SEVEN independent tv program producers are being subpoenaed to testify at the first public hearing scheduled by FCC's special network study committee. The hearing opens May 1 at 10 a.m. at Federal Court House. Foley Square, New York, with James D. Cunningham, chief hearing examiner, presiding. Under direction of U. of Cincinnati Law School Dean Roscoe R. Barrow, the FCC has been investigating network operations since September 1955. The decision to hold a public investigatory proceeding was based on refusal of some interests to supply requested data voluntarilv. FCC stated [B»T. March 25]. Subpoenas were being served last week. FCC said, on Harold L. Hackett. president of Official Films: John L. Sinn, president of Ziv Television Programs: Michael M. Sillerman. executive vice president, Television Programs of America: Ralph M. Cohn. vice president-general manager. Screen Gems: MCA-TV Ltd. (Music Corp. of America) and Charles Miller, secretary of Revue Productions, MCA subsidiary, and Harry Fleischman. president of Entertainment Productions. FCC's study is designed to determine if network operations promote or interfere with free competition in radio-tv broadcasting. Most industry interests have cooperated in meeting FCC's data requests on a voluntary basis, the Commission stated. Public hearings were ordered when needed documents were not supplied. FCC announced the first evidence will center around independent program producers. The study group's appropriation expires next June 30. FCC Drops Move to Require Patent Data From Licensees THE DEATH of an FCC proposal, first issued in November. 1951. to require licensees — both broadcast and nonbroadcast — to file their patent holdings with the Commission was made official last week. With Comrs. Robert T. Bartley and Robert E. Lee dissenting, the Commission determined that it would be "disadvantageous and unsound administratively" to require the filing of such information and terminated the rulemaking proceedings. When situations arise, the FCC said, it can require and obtain the patent information directly relating to the problem involved. A case-by-case approach is the most appropriate and efficient manner of dealing with the question of what patent information should be submitted, the Commission ruled. In a dissenting statement. Comr. Bartley said that he believed the regular reporting of patent information is necessary for the "proper execution of the Commission function.'' He felt that the proposal would, in the long run. "aid materially in the expeditious dispatch of its [the Commission's] business." Broadcasting • Telecasting April 29, 1957 • Page 67