Broadcasting Telecasting (Jul-Sep 1960)

EDITORIALS The task ahead THE NAB's long search for a president appears to be near conclusion. Once the new man is selected, the directors and members can turn their attention to another project that is equally important and perhaps more difficult — a reappraisal of the NAB's structure, function and relationship to other organizations to which broadcasters subscribe. The need for reappraisal has been evident for some time, but the death last March of Harold Fellows required that a higher priority be given to the task of choosing a successor. That job is almost done. Now more and more broadcasters are anxious to get to work on the policy problems. Their anxiousness is expressed in returns from a Broadcasting survey of television station managers' attitudes toward the Television Information Office, as reported elsewhere in this issue. The vast majority of respondents think that TIO is doing a good job and that its job is essential, but many also wonder whether it properly belongs to a separate organization like TIO or to the NAB. It was many years ago that this publication first advocated consideration of a federation of trade associations and groups in radio and television. It is an idea that is even more attractive today. The kind of federation we have in mind would not deprive any organization of its individual character, but it would create coordination for mutual efforts and eliminate the areas of duplication that now exist. The mechanics of a federation would take some study to design, but the broad purpose can be outlined simply. There would be an umbrella organization — the National Federation of Broadcasters might be its name — that would have the job of representing all of radio and television before the public and the government. It would also have the job of coordinating the activities of specialized organizations when those activities were in or near the area of public or government relations. In this arrangement the charters of the specialized organizations would have to be reworked. A Radio Advertising Bureau or a Television Bureau of Advertising would be given autonomy in its special field — selling — but would be required by its own charter to submit to the orders of the national federation if it chose to function in relations with the public or the government. How many of the existing organizations in radio and television would be suited to participate in a federation? That would be for each of them to say. but RAB and TvB come immediately to mind. Perhaps others like the Station Representatives Assn. could logically be woven in. It seems to us that the operations of TIO would become part of the expanded operations of the national federation by nature of the primary assignment of the federation itself, and we say this with no intention to underestimate the job that has been done by TIO's director, Louis Hausman, and the Television Information Committee which Clair McCollough heads. It is structure we are talking about, not personalities. Indeed it seems to us that the surest guarantee of retaining talents like those now associated with TIO is to give them a sensible framework in which to operate. Airspace pincers BROADCASTERS are threatened with an airspace pincers in the licensing process because of a jurisdictional controversy between the FCC and the new Federal Aviation Agency. At issue is who controls the airspace used for radio and television broadcasting. Tall towers for tv antennas are needed for maximum coverage under FCC criteria. The 118 FAA's interest is the determination of hazards to air commerce, and it has moved under extremely dubious if not nonexistent authority to assert its jurisdiction over heights and location of towers. The problem existed even before the advent of tv. Since the 1952 final tv allocations, devised to provide at least one television service to all parts of the country, the controversy has worsened. But the FCC has had the final word until now. On Oct. 10, by presidential order, the decade-old Air Coordinating Committee goes out of existence. The FAA then takes over. In advance of this, the FAA has issued proposed regulations challenging the old procedure. It proposes to assert final jurisdiction over tower locations and heights and to conduct separate proceedings, totally apart from those of the FCC governing issuance of permits. Beyond this, it proposes to establish a system of antenna farms for the entire country. Conceivably this could displace many existing antenna sites for radio as well as tv, without regard to coverage patterns, co-channel assignments and other criteria imbedded in existing FCC rules. If there is one thing certain in communications legislation, it is that the FCC is the sole and final arbiter in allocations of broadcasting facilities. This embraces approval of transmitting equipment, power, frequency and antenna height and location. These are the components that determine efficient coverage for prescribed areas. The FAA's jurisdictional claim over tower heights and sites is in contravention of the explicit terms of the Communications Act. Until now, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, predecessor of the FAA, recognized this. In creating the FAA. Congress certainly did not intend to rescind the FCC's final authority over the allocations process. It therefore follows that the FAA has misinterpreted congressional intent. Even under existing procedures, many stations have endured extreme hardships in seeking new locations for tall towers to enable them to improve service as the public interest requires. WHAS-TV Louisville, for example, has been trying for a half-dozen years to find a new site suitable to aviation authorities, but without success. Dual or split jurisdiction would be untenable. The FCC should assert itself against FAA usurpation of its clear authority. If it fails in that, congressional or court action should be sought. The effort of government should be to simplify and expedite issuance of permits and not to complicate, hinder and delay. Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "Our client's dropping the bowling show! He's had labor trouble, and all that talk about strikes upsets him!" BROADCASTING, September 26, 1960