Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

GOVERNMENT continued means of administering this valuable resource. Comr. T. A. M. Craven, twice a commissioner, formerly chief engineer of the FCC and for 12 years a private consulting engineer, obviously has given much thought to these questions. He is direct and specific about what he would like Congress to explain. Basically, Comr. Craven feels broadcasting should be utterly free of any competitive restraints. This requires, he feels, that Congress specify clearly that the Commission must not take into account anything remotely resembling the economic impact of one station on another. This also requires, he asserts, that the protest rule must be revised. It also involves such other problems as mutiple ownership limitations, diversification and allied policies, he feels. Another section Mr. Craven feels Congress should explore — and set down guidelines for the Commission — is the antitrust policy. Some elements in broadcasting and in Congress have pressed the Commission to take into account antitrust charges against applicants — even though these have never been litigated. If Congress feels the Commission should take these into account, it should set out criteria — or direct the FCC to pass this question and let the Department of Justice and the courts handle it. Mr. Craven feels that the provision prohibiting censorship of programs should be construed literally. If Congress has other ideas, it should tell the Commission so, directly and unequivocally. Another serious consideration in Comr. Craven's mind is whether Congress agrees or disagrees with the long-time FCC policy to use wire where possible instead of the radio spectrum, and to use common carrier facilities where possible instead of privately owned facilities. Big business is now using radio as an important tool in operations, he points out, and it is imperative that Congress express itself on policy here. Does Congress want to maintain the common carrier principle — "service to the entire public both in congested and non-congested areas," or does it want to "stimulate competition against the common carrier services with private systems?" Comr. Robert T. Bartley is another who has given serious thought to Commission policies and desires to see Congress tell the Commission whether or not it is following the intent of the law in its practices. Comr. Bartley feels that it is necessary for Congress to "reconfirm" what it intended when it specified that broadcasting is not a common carrier. This does not mean, according to Comr. Bartley, that Congress meant that broadcasting was to be completely free and untrammelled. Over the past few years, Mr. Bartley, a former broadcast executive and at one time an FCC official, has made it plain that a particular concern of has is the buying and selling of broadcast properties. He has almost invariably voted (mostly alone) in urging a hearing where a broadcast station was being sold to a major broadcast or nonbroadcast entity. He is not against such sales, he hastens to add, but he strongly feels that there ought to be more on the record of these transfers. Related to this in the Texas commissioner's mind is the question of how many stations one person or company may own. He has no set position on this, he explains, but he thinks it is a subject to which Congress might address itself and tell the FCC exactly what its feelings are. And, Comr. Bartley feels, Congress must set up once and for all exactly what the FCC should do on the economics issue. Should the Commission consider this, or should it wash its hands of the whole thing? An expression of Congressional intent would be "damned" helpful, Comr. Robert E. Lee feels, particularly in such areas as station sales and the Commission's common carrier, and safety and special services. The whole question of station sales and the Commission's jurisdiction should be explored, Mr. Lee feels. Not that there should be any prohibition, but there should be some way for the FCC to retain discretion in the choice of new owners, Mr. Lee feels. The special House Legislative Oversight (Moulder) Subcommittee last week beat down all but one objection by the Civil Aeronautics Board to Congress' absolute right to see virtually anything it wants in an independent agency's files. The showdown came last Thursday afternoon during a SVi-hour public hearing at the Capitol — and constituted a virtual victory for the congressional unit. The impact almost certainly will affect the committee's relations with the FCC — although the FCC has taken no stand in opposition to the subcommittee's requests. Left unresolved — but apparently acceding to CAB Chairman James R. Durfee's position — is the question of the sanctity of a commissioner's private papers — especially as they relate to how he has voted on cases. Mr. Durfee was the sole witness at the jam-packed "show cause" hearing by Rep. Morgan M. Moulder (D-Mo.) and his subcommittee. The House group was established as part of the House Commerce Committee to look into independent agencies— including the FCC, CAB, Federal Trade Commission, Securities & Exchange Commission, Federal Power Commission and Interstate Commerce Commission. It is operating with a $250,000 budget. During Thursday's session, Mr. Durfee informed the committee that the White House had directed him to relinquish all information requested by the subcommittee concerning CAB dealings with the President. The CAB earlier had taken the position that its relations with the President were beyond the reach of the House unit. It also was brought out that the CAB would turn over to the subcommittee all correspondence and documents from other agencies and government departments and from senators and congressmen, even though the writer of the letter or memorandum might object. The CAB also agreed to let the subcom Perhaps, he hazarded, there might be a way in which a hearing might be required and criteria established which would ensure some sort of local control — whether in management or in ownership. He also feels the Commission's work in the common carrier, and safety and special services field is inclined to get lost in the glamor of broadcasting. Congress can help a lot by looking into this, he says. Comr. Richard A. Mack expresses the hope that Congress might look into FCC procedures, with the view to eliminating those which are being "used" to delay service. He also feels that an inquiry into station sales would be a good thing; Congress, he ventures, might spell out some requirements which would make its intentions more clear in this area. In Florida, he notes, the statute on intrastate carriers provides a list of standards to be met in mergers; when a merger is submitted to the state's Public Service Commission and it meets these requirements, a grant is automatic; if not, the merger is denied. mittee have staff memoranda and other notes which up to now have been considered sacrosanct and not for public view. In the case of classified documents, it was agreed the subcommittee would use its influence with the agency which instituted the security stamp to reduce or eliminate the classification. The privilege of maintaining the privacy of a commissioner's own papers was maintained by Mr. Durfee through most of the lengthy hearing. His point was that, like a judge, the processes by which a commissioner arrives at a decision on a case should not be exposed to outsiders. This should apply also, he stressed, to data and docur ments submitted to a commissioner by his personal assistant. The subcommittee did not press this point. Only five members of the nine-man subcommittee were present at last week's open hearing. They were Reps. Morgan M. Moulder (D-Mo.), chairman; John E. Moss (D-Calif.), Joseph P. O'Hara (R-Minn.), Robert Hale (R-Maine) and John W. Heselton (R-Mass.). They were joined by Dr. Bernard Schwartz, chief counsel-staff director. The hearing was called when the CAB announced it would withhold certain information from the committee [At Deadline, Oct. 7]. This sparked a charge by Mr. Moulder that the CAB was attempting to dictate what the committee could see. He also claimed the chairmen of all independent agencies had agreed at a luncheon to hamstring the committee's investigators. At last week's hearing, Mr. Durfee admitted the chairmen of six agencies (CAB, FCC, SEC, ICC, FPC and FTC) had lunched together at the University Club in Washington Sept. 26 — but had come to no agreement or "compact." They had discussed "common problems" relating to the subcommittee's requests, Mr. Durfee said. Last week's hearing began with a state CAB BOWS TO MOULDER POSITION Page 90 • October 21, 1957 Broadcasting