Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

GOVERNMENT continued REP. BRAY mors that the military establishment is looking covetously at the lower vhf television channels. Although I have found no clearcut statement of this desire, the possibility of losing chs. 2 through 4 or 2 through 6 from commercial telecasting is too serious a threat to dismiss lightly. I have been trying to devise a way of WMI more clearly ascertaining the true requirements of the military services. The suggestion by Sen. Potter of a n o n governmental commission to study the use of frequencies reserved for government use and future needs was along the lines of my thinking on the subject, and I am happy to join in his efforts by introducing this resolution in the House. "As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have some familiarity with the military use of radio frequencies. Having long service experience, active and reserve, I am also aware of typical military procurement policies. I doubt if a commander ever lived who did not honestly feel he needed more men, arms or other equipment. While respecting the sincere efforts of our military leaders to requisition from peacetime use whatever seems to be required for our defense, we must not allow an overzealous and unwise demand for these frequencies to seriously interrupt and decrease the information and entertainment which commercial television brings to all." The NARTB Radio and Tv Boards, meeting in Washington last week (story, page 48), went on record as favoring Sen. Potter's resolution. Two Women's Clubs Urge Probe Of Radio-Tv Music Practices TWO women's clubs have asked the Justice Department to fully investigate to what degree the broadcast industry determines which music shall be played on radio and television. Mrs. R. I. C. Prout, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, in a telegram to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, said: "Only recently did we learn that the broadcasting networks and their subsidiaries own and control hundreds of music publishing firms. . . . We fervently hope that you will accept the recommendation of Congressman Emanuel Celler and his judiciary committee. We feel that if the Dept. of Justice thoroughly investigates the situation and takes the proper action, the public may once more hear all the music being written. . . ." Mrs. Ronald A. Dougan, president of the National Federation of Music Clubs, wrote to Mr. Brownell: "An extensive investigation into the intolerable combination of broadcasting interests which determine whose music shall be heard and how often, will help re-establish conditions of freedom for music in America." FCC WASHES ITS HANDS OF ANTITRUST, LEAVES SUCH MATTERS TO THE COURTS A NEW hands-off policy on antitrust matters was disclosed by the FCC last week when it told a federal court that it doesn't have and doesn't want to have the power to prosecute antitrust violations. The enunciation was one of the strongest statements on the monopoly subject made by the FCC in its 23-year-long history. It was contained in a document filed in Philadelphia district court in connection with the government's antitrust suit against RCA-NBC. The suit involves the 1955 NBC-Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. exchange of Philadelphia and Cleveland stations. On another antitrust front, the Kansas City Star Co. (WDAF-AM-TV) exhausted its last avenue of appeal last week when the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review its conviction of monopoly and attempted monopoly of news in the Kansas City area. And, in Philadelphia, eight radio stations and the Philadelphia Radio & Television Broadcasters Assn. — reeling under stiff fines for an acknowledged technical violation of the antitrust laws although exonerated of any illegal intent [B*T, June 17] — were girding themselves to face the outcome of a government civil antitrust action. The FCC's antitrust policy, which goes further than any previous statement on the subject, was filed with District Judge William H. Kirkpatrick last Wednesday. The 16-page, "Memorandum of Law" virtually told the court that the Dept. of Justice has every right to initiate antitrust suits against radio or tv broadcasters, even though the FCC might have considered such charges and decided that it was no bar to a grant. This point of view refuted the basic defense made by RCA-NBC in their response to the government's charges. RCA-NBC maintained that where the FCC has considered such matters and approved the action requested no other government agency may reopen the matter. The government suit attacks the 1955 exchange whereby the network got WBC's Philadelphia radio and tv stations in exchange for NBC's Cleveland properties plus $3 million. The NBC-owned Philadelphia stations are now WRCV-AM-TV; the WBC COMMISSION DEFINITION FOR the aid of the uninitiated individual who finds himself forced to read and try to understand an official document of the FCC, William B. Ogden, director of the Radio Operational Engineering School, Burbank, Calif., has issued a 36-page glossary of terms used by the FCC. In addition to the technical and operational terms and their definitions, which take up most of the pamphlet, it also contains a list of station symbols, nomenclature of frequencies, spare tubes required, classification of emissions and titles of the parts of the Commission's rules and regulations. Cleveland stations are now KYW-AM-FMTV. In its December 1956 suit, the government asked that NBC be forced to divest itself of the Philadelphia stations and also of such other assets as the court may "deem necessary and appropriate." It charged that NBC "coerced" WBC into agreeing to the exchange by threatening to withdraw NBC affiliations from WBC stations. At the time of the transfer application there were unspecified allegations that NBC had threatened WBC with loss of affiliations. These were investigated By the FCC, which found no support for fire* charges, and approved the exchanges in December 1955. A pretrial conference is scheduled to be held in Washington by Judge Kirkpatrick June 28. It is understood that the question of primary jurisdiction will be probed at that time. The Commission submitted its document to the court under a request for permission to submit its views as "a friend of the court." A ruling on this will come June 28, it was explained, although every indication was given that the legal brief will be accepted by Judge Kirkpatrick. The FCC's position is that no action it takes can foreclose' the government from proceeding under the antitrust laws. It also stated that there is no requirement that the Jusice Dept. participate in FCC proceedings before filing suits in a court. After alluding to various statements by FCC Chairman George C. McConnaughey and the Commission, the FCC's brief said: "... The Commission has made clear that it does not believe it can effectively enforce the antitrust laws in cases such as this one but rather must leave the enforcement of those laws to the Dept. of Justice and other governmental agencies. The Commission has therefore examined transfers such as the subject one from the viewpoint of its own expertise in the communications field and the general standard of the public interest. And while the question of possible violation of the antitrust laws may of course be pertinent to the Commission's determination under the public interest standard, the Commission has normally left the determination of possible antitrust questions in cases such as the instant one to the agencies and courts having the statutory responsibility and expertise to properly deal with it . . ." In another section of the memorandum, the Commission made it plain that although it does not and would not rule on an antitrust violation, it can and does take into account as part of a character qualification whether or not an applicant has been found guilty of such illegal acts. ". . . The Commission can at best determine whether actions by parties subject to its jurisdiction affect the public interest licensing standard," the FCC declared. "In making this determination a ruling by the Courts that a particular action was in violation of the antitrust laws might well be a relevant consideration for the Commission. Page 64 • June 24, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting