Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1962)

GOVERNMENT Is the FCC ready to take half a loaf? HOUSE TO GET VIEWS ON DROPPING VHF PLAN TO GET ALL-CHANNEL SET The FCC appears ready to abandon deintermixture, at least for now, as a means of fostering the development of uhf, provided Congress enacts all-channel-receiver legislation — the commission's "long-run" solution to the uhf problem. The basis for such a trade was laid by Rep. Oren Harris (D-Ark.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, at a hearing last week on the allchannel-receiver bill (HR 8031) and nine other measures that would block commission proposals to substitute uhf for vhf channels in eight markets. Would the commission, Rep. Harris asked FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow, delay deintermixture until it sees how all-channel legislation affects the development of uhf? He suggested a delay of "five, six, or seven years." "The principle of a moratorium sounds very fruitful, very promising," said Mr. Minow. But he asked for time to consult with the other six commissioners and write a reply after a hurried conference with three commissioners then in the hearing room, Frederick W. Ford, Rosel Hyde, and John S. Cross. Pastore's Advice ■ Mr. Minow had originally been advised by Sen. John O. Pastore (D-R.I.) to consider a compromise at a hearing by the latter's Senate Communications Subcommittee three weeks ago (Broadcasting, Feb. 26). As Mr. Minow later told Rep. William Springer (R-Ill.), a House Commerce Committee member who attended the Pastore hearings, he "got the message." The commission's statement last week indicated a willingness to "give." The agency said enactment of all-channel legislation would be another factor the commission must consider in the deintermixture cases. The commission had never thought the receiver bill had "much of a chance," Mr. Minow told Rep. Harris. The statement also said the bill represents a long-term solution to the vhfuhf problem, as opposed to deintermixture, which is a short-term answer. The FCC said it will welcome congressional guidance, in the form of a broad policy statement. Mr. Minow, however, drew the line at legislation specifically barring the commission from proceeding with deintermixture. Several of the bills would provide for all-channel sets but also prevent the commission from reassigning vhf channels. He urged that the two proposals be treated separately, and said that a "statutory prohibition against deintermixture" would deny the commission the "flexibility" it needs. Harris Hopeful ■ On this question, he appeared to have support from Rep. Harris, who repeatedly questioned the "appropriateness" of an anti-deintermixture proposal in the all-channel-set bill. The important consideration, he said, is to make better use of the spectrum. He said he didn't know whether the FCC's deintermixture proposal represents "the best approach — certainly it's not the most satisfactory." But, he said, "we've reached the time where we can bring about a program" if Congress and the FCC approach the problem in the proper spirit. Later, he led Mr. Minow through a series of questions to put the proposed compromise in sharper focus. If Congress enacts the all-channel-receiver bill, Mr. Minow agreed, the commission could discontinue its deintermixture proceedings if it regards that as in the public interest. Mr. Minow said he thinks the FCC reconsideration could include ch. 2 Springfield, 111. This channel, originally assigned to Springfield, was transferred to St. Louis several years ago in a deintermixture proceeding, but the case is back before the commission on a remand from the courts. Rep. Harris raised the question for the sake of two Illinois congressmen on his committee, Rep. Springer and Peter F. Mack Jr. (D), both advocates of measures to restrict the commission's right to reassign vhf channels. Pleas for Vhf ■ As the hearing got New reply deadline The FCC authorized a threemonth extension of the March 23 deadline for reply comments on the agency's proposals to foster development of the uhf band, to deintermix eight markets by deleting single vhf channels and to add vhf channels in eight markets at short spacing (Broadcasting, Feb. 26). In shifting the replies deadline to June 22, the FCC said it is granting requests by "various parties." There were some 3,000 filings on the proceedings, some parties suggesting counterproposals and others saying they would say more when replies are due. underway Monday, it was apparent it would be a turbulent one for the FCC. Some 20 congressmen urged the committee to save vhf in their districts. Rep. Horace Seely-Brown, Jr. (R-Conn.) accused the commission of "harrassing" ch. 3 Hartford (WTIC-TV), and all of the others referred to vast areas of their states that would be denied television service if the vhf channels are deleted. Many of the committee members represent areas threatened with deintermixture. In addition, such high-ranking state officials as Gov. John Dempsey of Connecticut and Attorney General William G. Clark of Illinois pleaded for the preservation of their states' vhf channels. The Illinois channels involved are ch. 3 Champaign (WCIA [TV]) and ch. 13 Rockford (WREX-TV). Opposition also came from a long line of city officials and industry representatives. But Mr. Minow's apparent willingness to yield on deintermixture dissipated much of the hostility that had built up among committee members. After a long day of testimony on Tuesday, he and his colleagues were praised by Rep. Harris for their "excellent testimony on a complicated subject." The sessions became heated only once, when Rep. Robert W. Hemphill (D-S.C.) criticized Mr. Minow for "even proposing" the deletion of ch. 10 Columbia (WIS-TV) in his state. He said the commission did "my people a great disservice." "Improper" ■ The FCC chairman refused to be drawn into a discussion of the issue. He said it would be "improper" to comment since the matter is pending before the commission. Rep. Harris finally came to his rescue, ending the questioning as improper. CBS President Frank Stanton, the only broadcasting spokesman to testify before the committee recessed till Friday (March 9), indicated he would go along with the kind of moratorium suggested by Rep. Harris as a substitute for legislation banning deintermixture. He said he favors the all-channel-set bill with an anti-deintermixture provision, but "a compromise is better than nothing." He conceded he feels the receiver legislation is more important than a legislative freeze on deintermixture. But, he added quickly, there must be some protection for the vhfs. He said there is considerable concern in the industry that the FCC will one day trans 42 BROADCASTING, March 12, 1962.