Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

GOVERNMENT continued will be entered into with subscribers; also, a statement as to whether the proposed subscription television service will be made available to all persons applying for it, and if not, a statement of the basis upon which subscribers will be selected. (3) The approximate number of subscribers it is intended to serve during the proposed operation. (4) Available information concerning the contemplated range of minimum and maximum charges to subscribers for the various types of subscription television programs it is proposed to offer to the public. (5) Answers to questions in Table I, Section II and Question No. 4 in Section III of FCC Form No. 301, with respect to any person or persons who would perform, supervise, participate in or control the performance of any of the following functions: * (a) Provision of encoders and any other equipment required for the transmission of subscription television programs other than equipment used by the television station for its regular operation. + (b) Provision of decoding or other equipment required for the intelligent reception of subscription television programs by the subscriber, f (c) Determination of the charges, terms and conditions of service to subscribers and of payments to the television station for its participation in the proposed subscription television operation. (d) Selection and procurement of subscription television programs for local transmission. (e) Dissemination of decoding information to subscribers, billing, and other related functions. (6) Detailed information concerning commitments obtained and negotiations underway for the provision of subscription programs to be offered to subcribers during the proposed subscription television operations. (7) Statement of intention with respect to the transmission of commercial announcements during subscription television programs. (The Commission understands from proposals before it in this proceeding that the proponents do not contemplate the inclusion of commercial announcements in subscription television programs.) C. Applications must be accompanied by copies of executed operating agreements between the applicant licensee and any person (local community franchise holder for the subscription television system to be employed, holder of patents on equipment to be used, patent licensees or any other person) who would perform, supervise, participate in or control the performance of any of the functions enumerated under B(5) * References in Form 301 to "applicant" will be understood to include both the applicant hereunder and any other person or persons described in B(5). References in Section III. Question 4 of Form 301 to "station" and to "the purchase or construction of the station" will be understood to refer to the local subscription television operation. Applicants need not resubmit information already on file with the Commission, t In the case of equipment manufacturers, the name and address will suffice, except where the information specified under B(5) is required for such manufacturers under B(5)(c), (d) or (e). Page 84 • October 21, 1957 above. Such agreements must: (1) State, in full detail, all the undertakings and understandings between the* applicant and such other persons which will govern the conduct of all aspects of the proposed subscription television operation. (2) Contain the provisions required by paragraphs 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 86 and 87 hereof [non-exclusivity, licensee responsibility, uniform charges, reports], and provide that participation in the operation by the station licensee is conditional on compliance therewith by the other contracting party or parties. (3) Provide that no amendments thereto shall take effect until they have been filed with the Federal Communications Commission. D. If the performance of any of the functions listed under B(5), above, by the person with whom applicant enters into an operating agreement, is the subject of any contract, agreement or understanding between such person and any third person, applications filed hereunder must be accompanied by copies of such contracts, agreements or understandings. Appeals Court Faces Heavy Radio -Tv Docket Does the FCC have the right to permit temporary operation on a tv channel while a battle is being fought among competitive applicants for that frequency? Does an electronics manufacturer — who makes radio and tv sets — have the right to protest the license renewal of radio-tv stations in its community owned by a rival manufacturer? Is the FCC legally correct in promulgating its judgment that it does not have the power to consider the economic impact of a new station on an existing station? Will the FCC's tv grants stick in Miami, Indianapolis, Boston and other cities? Can the FCC rightfully take away vhf channels from stations in Evansville, Peoria, Springfield, 111., and other cities? These among other questions very, likely will be answered this court year. They are among the more than 35 radio-tv cases pending decision in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There are two cases in other circuits. The Washington, D. C, fall term began three weeks ago. Pending judicial determination are two appeals against the Commission's authority permitting uhf stations to operate on newlyassigned vhf channels pending the outcome of comparative hearings for the vhf channels. One is in St. Louis, where the former ch. 36 KTVI (TV) is now operating on ch. 2 (moved to St. Louis from Springfield, 111.). The other is in Albany, N. Y., where ch. 41 WCDA (TV) has been given permission to operate on ch. 10 Vail Mills, N. Y. (a suburb of Albany). The St. Louis operation has been attacked by Louisiana Purchase Co., applicant for St. Louis' ch. 2. The Albany grant has been under fire by WVET-TV Rochester, N. Y., an applicant for Albany's ch. 10. A similar case — with a slight difference— is in New Orleans where ch. 20 WJMR-TV that city is operating under an experimental grant simultaneously on ch. 12. This has been attacked by co-channel ch. 12 WJTV (TV) Jackson, Miss., and by KWTV (TV) Oklahoma City. WJTV claims the Commission cannot compromise its rule, which requires that co-channel transmitters must be at least 190 miles away. The WJMR-TV transmitter is less than 190 miles from the WJTV transmitter. KWTV is an applicant for the new New Orleans vhf channel. Several months ago Philco Corp., Philadelphia, asked the FCC to set for hearing the applications of WRCV-AM-TV that city for license renewals. Philco claimed the NBCowned stations constitute unfair competition since they represent RCA (which owns NBC) to the Philadelphia audience. The FCC dismissed the petition on the ground that Philco has no standing to object. Earlier this year, the Commission stated that it does not have the statutory power to consider economic impact on competition in deciding whether or not to grant or deny an application. This was the Southeastern Broadcasting Co. case, which was appealed but then withdrawn. Before this declaration the Commission had assumed it had this legal power but had always decided against using it. In court is the appeal of WLBB Carrollton, Ga., against the grant of a new radio station in Bremen, Ga. (now WWCC) on these grounds. There are 10 appeals seeking to upset new tv grants. These include: Knoxville, Tenn., ch. 10; Norfolk, Va., ch. 10; Miami, Fla., ch. 10; Boston, Mass., ch. 5; Orlando, Fla., ch. 9, Indianapolis, Ind., ch. 13; New Orleans, La., ch. 4; Biloxi, Miss., ch. 13; Charlotte, N. C, ch 9. Also on appeal is the grant made for ch. 2 in Springfield, 111., but this has been held in abeyance until the companion deintermixture appeal is decided. Among the deintermixture cases are the BOXSCORE STATUS of comparative hearing cases for new tv stations before FCC: AWAITING FINAL DECISION: 1 Beaumont, Tex., ch. 6 (9-30-57). AWAITING ORAL ARGUMENT: 8 (Figures in parentheses indicate dates initial decisions were issued.) Coos Bay, Ore., ch. 16 (7-20-56); Hatfield, Ind.-Owensboro, Ky., ch. 9 (2-18-57); Onondaga-Parma, Mich., ch. 10 (3-7-57); Toledo, Ohio, ch. 11 (3-21-57); Cheboygan, Mich., ch. 4 (6-21-57); Buffalo, N. Y., ch. 7 (9-13-57); Lubbock, Tex., ch. 5 (9-9-57); Mayaguez, P. R., ch. 3. IN HEARING: 7 Alliance, Neb., ch. 13 (6-6-57); Greenwood, Miss., ch. 6; Elk City, Okla.. ch. 8; Ogden, Utah, ch. 9 (7-3-57); Baton Rouge, La., ch. 18 (7-11-57); Elko, Nev., ch. 10 (7-1157); Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex., ch. 12. IN COURT: 10 (Appeals from tv grants in U. S. Court of Appeals, Washington.) Portsmouth, Va., ch. 10; Miami, ch. 10; Knoxville, Tenn., ch. 10; Boston, ch. 5; Springfield, 111., ch. 2; Charlotte, N. C, ch. 9; Biloxi, Miss., ch. 13; New Orleans, La., ch. 4; Orlando, Fla., ch. 9; Indianapolis. Ind., ch. 13. Broadcasting