Television digest with AM-FM reports (Jan-Dec 1951)

ADDITIONAL ^^EWS OF COMMISSIONER COY I AGREE with the action of the Commission in adopting the Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making together with Appendices A through D attached thereto. I desire, however, to express additional views with respect to Paragraph VI of Appendix A and that portion of Appendix C which relates to the reservation of specified VHF and UHF television channels for non-commercial educational television stations. It seems unnecessary for anyone to point to his belief that television has great potentialities in the field of education. I think there is universal awareness with respect to this fact. There is, however, a startling lack of data concerning the willingness and readiness of educational institutions — their boards of trustees, administrative officials and faculties— to use television as an educational tool. The funds required to build and operate a non-commercial television station are not inconsequential. In the light of other needs of higher educational institutions — new facilities, improved salary schedule for faculty personnel, retirement programs, etc. — it is understandable that such a decision is not easily taken. The continuing cost of operations without any income is perhaps a more difficult hurdle than the funds required to build the transmitter and studios. Television frequencies constitute an important and large part of a great national resource, the radio spectrum. It is essential that such a resource be utilized in the public interest. It certainly cannot be regarded as being in the public interest if television frequencies, now proposed to be reserved by the Federal Communications Commission, are not utilized within the reasonably near future. What is the reasonably near future with respect to this problem? It is my opinion that the reasonably near future is the time required for educational institutions to make up their minds as to w'hether or not they will utilize television in their educational program and in so doing decide to become an opei’ator or a joint operator of a non-commercial educational television station. Governors of the various states, state legislatures, boards of trustees, administrative officers and faculties are all involved in this decision making. Certainly the participation of state-supported schools in this proposal to use television as a part of their educational program requires decision by state legislatures which may not meet until approximately two years from now. It certainly would be unreasonable to attempt to force decisions in such cases without allowing sufficient time for state legislatures to meet and consider the problem. Indeed, because of the magnitude of the problem more than one session of a state legislature might be required for this problem. But it does not seem unreasonable to expect boards of trustees and administrative officials of educational institutions to declare their intentions at an early date, subject to action by state legislatures. I am of the opinion that if the proposed reservation is made final it is important for the Commission to emphasize that the reservation of channels for educational stations in no way relieves the licensees of commercial television stations of any responsibility to render a well rounded program service, including a reasonable proportion of time devoted to programs that meet the educational needs of the community. Perhaps many educational institutions will decide to use television in cooperation with commercial broadcasters rather than as operators or joint operators of a non-commercial educational station. I believe that there are television broadcasters now operating stations in this country who are beginning to make substantial contributions in the field of meeting the educational needs of their community. In some of those cases those needs are being met upon the initiative of the television broadcaster in seeking out the cooperation of educational institutions. I realize that many of these programs are not in choice viewing hours when a large audience is available. In this connection, commercial stations already make provisions for periodic interruptions in a series of commercial programs in order to provide for the seasonal needs of the sponsor or to provide time for the program of another sponsor. There is no reason why commercial stations cannot utilize the same technique in interrupting a series of commercial programs to make way on a regular basis for a series of educational programs. For example, if arrangements can be made for Jack Benny and Bob Hope to present their television shows in choice viewing hours normally occupied by other talent, it would seem easy to make arrangements for educational programs to be substituted for commercial programs in choice viewing hours, thus giving such programs wide circulation and greatly increasing their effectiveness. I do not want anyone to think that I am satisfied that commercial television stations are now meeting or in the future can meet all of the educational needs of the people of this counti'y. However, I do know that they can do much along this line and it is my belief that they will do more in this field under the impact of competition from educational television stations than they would do without such competition. But that competition will not be a reality merely by reserving channels for educational stations. It can only become a reality if there is a clear and immediate response on the part of the educational institutions of the country indicating that they intend to utilize television in the educational process. I am concurring in the action of the Commission in the proposed reservation of VHF and UHF channels for educational stations as set forth in Appendix C with the hope that the evidence in the ensuing proceedings will give the Commission further and more certain information than it now has as to what we may expect with respect to the utilization of the frequencies proposed to be resei'ved for educational stations. SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER HENNOCK I The Commission, in its proposed allocation plan, recognizes and adopts the principle of reserving television channels for non-commercial educational use. I believe, however, that the reservation provided for by the Commission is inadequate and ineffective in many vital respects and certainly not a sufficient recognition of the need and merit of educational television. The Commission’s proposal, by failing to give the schools a sufficient share of the remaining television spectrum, will adversely affect the course of education in the United States for generations to come. Television, the most dynamic and effective means of mass communication that modern science has devised, enables the educator to reach into millions of American schools and homes. By now everyone has come to recognize the revolutionary changes that visual education has brought about in teaching methods. Television is uniquely qualified to utilize and spread the benefits of this modern and efficient method of education at a minimum cost. As the educators’ tool, television can bring about as great an expansion and revitalization of education as did the development of printing in the early days of the Renaissance. Our daily experience furnishes the evidence of television’s amazing growth, as well as its extraordinary impact upon the minds, habits and lives of all Americans, particularly upon children and youths. Anyone who has observed a young child sitting captivated before a television receiver needs no further proof of this fact. For this reason, the Commission has a special responsibility to insure that these children, as well as adult listeners, have full access to the best in education and culture, in addition to the general fare offered by commercial broadcasters. In the hands of the educator, television can become an unparalleled instrument for developing and spreading knowledge and enlightenment— the foundations of a strong and free America. An adequate home in the television spectrum must there 4