Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

MOULDER WONT ALTER FCC EDICTS GOVERNMENT continued lawful. Therefore we believe the decisions of the hearing examiner are unsupported by the record and insufficient in law. We confidently expect that the initial decisions will be reversed when they are reviewed by the full Commission." The FTC lists these broadcast expenditures in connection with the case: Piel Bros. Year Company Station Amount Paid 1 951 WNBC (now WRCA) New York $ 49,125.00 1952 IN b(_ WNBC 76,675.00 /-DC LDo WCBS New York 36,984.16 1953 A 13 v. WABC-TV New York 72,380.00 L DO WCBS 61,090.26 NBC WNBC 78,325.00 1954 CBS WCBS NBC WIND. to 520 00 1955 CBS WCBS 69,047.20 NBC WNBC 79,040.00 1956 CBS WCBS, to June 30 34,126.84 NBC WNBC, to June 30 39,318.00 Hud son Pulp & Paper 1952 CBS WCBS $ 27,676.00 1953 ABC WBKB (TV) Chicago 9,500.00 CBS WCBS 62,595.64 1954 ABC WBKB (TV) 38,500.00 CBS WCBS 36,764.20 NBC WNBC 79,355.00 1955 ABC WBKB (TV) 26,250.00 CBS WCBS 43,691.38 NBC WNBC 30,480.71 1956 CBS WCBS 36,584.50 P. Lorillard 1953 ABC WABC-TV $ 11,804.13 1954 ABC WABC-TV 72,497.14 CBS WBBM Chicago 41,223.46 1955 ABC WABC-TV 107,629.12 CBS WBBM 103,129,62 1956 ABC WABC-TV, to June 30 31,531.00 CBS WBBM, to June 30 44,471.64 Groveton Paper Co. Year Company Station Amount Paid 1952 ABC WABC-TV New York $ 36,463.81 1953 ABC WABC-TV 87,513.13 CBS WEEI Boston 4,827.74 1 954 ABC WABC-TV 94,939.93 CBS WEEI 27,211.93 1 7JJ ABC WABC-TV 102,366.72 CBS WEEI 9,867.86 1956 ABC WABC-TV, to June 30 46,963.00 CBS WEEI 13,408.05 General Foods 1952 NBC WMAQ Chicago $ 13,800.00 1953 ABC WABC 65,112.00 NBC WMAQ 17,715.00 1954 CBS WBBM 11/4/54 to 12/30/54 38,111.48 NBC WMAQ 20,525.00 1955 ABC WABC 67,637.50 CBS W3BM, 4/5/55 to 3/29/56 109,293.68 NBC WMAQ 29,480.00 1956 ABC WABC, to June 30 24,461.51 CBS WBBM, 4/5/55 to 3/29/56 35,091.96 Sunshine Biscuits 1954 ABC WBKB (TV) $ 49,450.00 NBC WMAQ 38,956.25 1955 ABC WBKB 55,685.00 NBC WNBC 36,920.50 NBC WMAQ 40,170.00 1956 CBS WBBM, April 4 to June 30, 1956 13,824.00 NBC WNBC, to June 30 29,350.00 NBC WNAQ, to June 30 13,260.00 Page 66 • October 28, 1957 It is not the intent of the House Legislative Oversight Subcommittee to change any decisions of the FCC in individual cases, Rep. Oren Harris (D-Ark.), chairman of the parent Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee, told the Friday luncheon meeting of the NARTB regional conference in Memphis. He also discussed the "broad jurisdiction" of the Commerce Committee, intent of Congress in passing the Communications Act, the networks, frequency allocations and pay television [Lead Story, page 31]. Rep Harris mentioned, but only briefly, the Commission's Barrow study of network practices. The Legislative Oversight Subcommittee, headed by Rep. Morgan Moulder (D-Mo.), is investigating the FCC and five other independent agencies. A recent subcommittee statement inviting attorneys and others to submit complaints with regards to Commission actions "may have led some to expect that the subcommittee will proceed to review individual cases for the purpose of possibly changing the results in some of them," Rep. Harris told the southerners. "I would like to make it abundantly clear that we have no such objective in mind. . . . The Communications Act and the Administrative Procedures Act spell out ways in which administrative and judicial review of the decisions of the FCC may be secured," he said. "Legislative oversight, on the other hand, means an attempt to determine whether or not existing patterns of handling individual cases are satisfactory, and, if these patterns are found to be unsatisfactory, whether this is due to the failure on the part of the agency to observe the law or due to inadequate provisions contained in these laws." Complaints have been voiced that the FCC has been inconsistent "to the degree of appearing arbitrary; that some commissioners in conducting Commission business have failed to observe the ordinary rules of propriety; that the communications industry has taken over the Commission, and that the Commission has not been diligent in dealing with many communications problems concerning which Congress has delegated the Commission important powers," Rep. Harris said. The Commerce chairman explained that it is impossible for his committee to hold hearings each year on every piece of legislation it receives because of the committee's vast range of duties. "But let me make it very clear," he stressed, "that this does not mean that the committee is not following closely all important developments in each of these fields." He promised the committee "shall exercise continuous watchfulness over the execution of the laws by the administrative agencies of government within the jurisdiction of the committee. Some people seem to have forgotten about this directive [Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946] of the Congress to each of the committees." The Radio Act of 1927, the Communica tions Act of 1934 and the McFarland Act of 1952 contain a minimum of restrictions on broadcasters and place maximum reliance on the forces of compstition to bring about a system of broadcasting which is in the public interest, Rep. Harris told the NARTB gathering. Since these acts were passed, he continued, "the question is becoming more and more urgent whether the forces of competition ... by themselves are strong enough to produce the kind of radio and television system which can best serve the needs of the American people." The three specific problem areas which require the exercise of "legislative oversight," according to Rep. Harris, are network operations, subscription television and allocations. "I think the question before the Congress today is whether the provisions of the Communications Act are adequate to deal with today's problems of radio and television network broadcasting," he said. Congress appropriated money for the Barrow study to determine whether the assumptions which guided the drafting of the Communications Act are true today, he stated. "Congress should determine to what extent, if any, it must give up reliance on the forces of competition to produce results in the public interest in the field of television broadcasting and what additional powers, if any, should be granted to the FCC to counteract the concentration of power now existing in the field." Also required, he said, is an examination to determine whether "the tremendous developments which have taken place in the field of communications require a new statutory approach to the problem of distributing available spectrum space among governmental as well as private claimants. Essentially, the FCC distributes among broadcasters [and others] those frequencies which are left over after the federal government has had its pick of the spectrum for her (sic) own use. . . ." Rep. Harris said that there is a bill (HJ Res. 381), introduced by Rep. William Bray [R-Ind.], pending before his committee calling for a commission to be established to study the government's use of the spectrum. (An identical bill is pending before the Senate.) "The committee has not as yet had an opportunity to hold hearings on this resolution. However, the committee must not only consider this resolution but it must also, in the exercise of its legislative oversight function," determine if enough spectrum space is available for all qualified users, he said. He stated that future work of Congress in these fields will be a case of "legislative hindsight" rather than "legislative oversight." He put forth the suggestion that "perhaps it would be desirable for the Congress to limit, let us say for 10 years, the period of time for which regulatory authority would be granted to independent agencies or executive departments. "Such limitation might act as an automatic reminder to the Congress . . . that the Broadcasting