Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

4 AUGUST 3, 1959 to parcel spectrum between govt. & non-govt, users "on its own initiative," if it chooses — and none of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are applicable to its actions. Board would have to transmit its decisions to the President, who would have power to accept, reject, modify or reverse Board's decisions — if national security or foreign relations are involved. Bill also would establish a Government Frequency Administrator to allocate spectrum among govt, frequency users. Assn, of Maximum Service Telecasters* exec, dir. Lester Lindow is aghast at the bill, despite Harris' record of "showing appreciation of the problems of non-govt, spectrum users." "This bill," Lindow said, "would put unprecedented authority in the hands of the President, out of the hands of Congress. It would make allocations almost a star chamber proceeding. No public notice. No hearings. No Administrative Procedure Act. It would affect far more than TV — AM, FM, all radio users. It even has implications beyond communications." NAB offered no reaction, but it's understood to lean same way. Among networks, CBS & ABC spokesmen said they weren't prepared to comment. But one informed NBC source likes the bill. He said that the civilian composition of proposed Board is better safeguard against arbitrary govt, action than present setup — in which spectrum is divided between govt. & non-govt, users through negotiation between FCC and all other govt, agencies. He also pointed to "legislative intent" behind the bill, as expressed by Harris in this paragraph of a press release: "The Freqency Allocation Board and the President would be given authority to modify or cancel allocations of radio frequencies presently allocated for non-federal govt, uses or for federal govt, uses, respectively. However, where such frequencies have been used regularly, and extensively for the purposes for which they were allocated, and large sums have been invested in equipment especially designed for use of such frequencies, the Board or the President would not be expected to modify or cancel such allocations, unless such action was determined to be necesary in the interest of national security." Harris has thrown in the towel on a spectrum study on his own, even though Congress gave him $150,000 for it. His spectrum panel discussion (Vol. 15:24), he said, convinced him that proper organization is needed, not more studies. Furthermore, he said, he couldn't get the people he needed for a study, nor could he get cooperation from the military. Bill won't get any hearings this session but it will be an inflammable document next year if Harris chooses to stoke it. Congress BASEBALL BLACKOUT SPECTRES: Professional club owners & enthusiasts last week made their annual pitch in Congress for sports anti-trust exemption legislation permitting them to control telecasts of games — but it looked like they’d lose again. The Senate Judiciary anti-trust & monopoly subcommittee headed by Sen. Kefauver (D-Tenn.), which last year blocked such legislation after it had passed the House (Vol. 14:31), went through hearings on the subject again. But the counterpart House Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Rep. Celler (D-N.Y.) hadn’t yet found room for sports on its hearings agenda. And time at this Congressional session was growing late. Up for the Senate hearings were a baseball TV blackout bill (S-616) by Sens. Hennings (D-Mo.), Dirksen (R111.) & Keating (R-N.Y.) and a brownout bill (S-886) introduced by Kefauver himself. The first would permit clubs to forbid telecasts of major league games within 75 miles of minor club communities. The second would permit telecasting restrictions “reasonably necessary” to protect minor club gates — if approved by FCC. The pro sports lineup for the anti-trust exemption legislation was led by Baseball Comr. Ford C. Frick. He heartly endorsed TV restrictions as necessary to save baseball from falling attendance by paying customers. Frick said TV was about 60% responsible for the plight of minor clubs which have been forced to fold. Principal Congressional spokesman for the blackout bill was Sen. Keating, who said pro sports must be freed from anti-trust threats — or “we court disaster for the pastimes so many Americans love so well.” He denounced the milder Kefauver bill and its “reasonably necessary” TV brownout provisions as leading to govt, interference. FCC took a dim view of both bills, as it did when similar legislation was up last year. In a letter to Kefauver, Chairman Doerfer said the Commission doesn’t want to make judgments on particular programming policies. NAB pres. Harold E. Fellows, whose testimony last year helped stop similar legislation, didn’t make a personal appearance at the Senate hearings this time. But he spoke for broadcasters in a statement filed with Kefauver, centering his fire on the Hennings-Dirksen-Keating measure. Fellows said that if the 75-mile blackout bill is passed, only 35 of 183 TV stations which now carry major league games would be unaffected, 90 stations would be blacked out all the time, 58 would be blacked out at least half the time. He estimated 44 million viewers would be deprived of a chance to watch major games as a result — and this “would force the cessation of major league telecasts” by the stations. And it wouldn’t be economically feasible for advertisers to sponsor games, he pointed out. Meanwhile, the Portland (Ore.) baseball club of the Pacific Coast league sued the major leagues for $1.8 million in triple anti-trust damages, charging — among other things — that the majors’ TV & player acquisition practices were responsible for Portland’s “loss of income and general reputation & goodwill.” The suit asked the court to enjoin “unfair competition” by TV.