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

6 counsel Bingham, Collins, Porter & Kistler, include Sec. 4(b) of Administrative Procedures Act, Secs. 307(b) and (c) of Communications Act. Generally, petition contends that FCC hasn't given parties full opportunity to participate in rule-making; that Congress hasn't delegated authority to make channel reservations; that channel allocations must be guided by demand, rather than fixed allocation plan to be changed only by rule-making. In lieu of present procedures, petition suggests that allocation plan be placed in engineering standards "as a guide.” According to counsel, this could mean lifting of freeze within couple months. Otherwise, they fear, whole procedure is extremely vulnerable to tieup in courts anywhere along the v;ay — even after grants have been made. For example, a single court test of any of the 31 proposed channel shifts, they say, could throw whole allocation into litigation for 2-3 years. Similar word of caution will be voiced by Federal Communications Bar Assn, in petition to be filed shortly (Vol. 7:17). OLD ORDER NAY CHANGE IN FCC SHAKEUP: FCC underwent something of a revolution this Tjfeek — in move that didn't make newspaper headlines but can have enormous influence on its future actions. It removed Harry Plotkin, assistant general counsel, from driver's seat on broadcasting matters, picked chief engineer Curtis Pliimmer to head newly established Broadcast Bureau which will have vast authority over aural and visual broadcasting. Plotkin is widely regarded as prime architect of much Commission policy, the "master mind" behind recent moves arousing bitter controversy. He's a brilliant, persuasive, relentless advocate of greater and greater govt, control over industry. FCC vote of 5-2 was harsh defeat for Chairman Coy, Plotkin 's staunchest supporter. Only he and Comr. Hennock voted for Plotkin. Until month or so ago, it was considered virtually unthinkable that anybody else would get prize $11,200 job. Hennock vote was surprise, for she's at constant odds v/ith Coy (she's suspected of harboring ambition to be next chairman) and it was she who once gave Plotkin fiercest public tongue-lashing we've ever heard in FCC hearing room (Vol. 6:48), accusing him of underhandedly sabotaging her pet educational TV program. ^ ^ ^ All isn't settled yet, since Plummer's second in command is still to be named. He may want Plotkin, since they've worked together for years. But FCC majority could reiterate what some lawyers styled "lack of confidence vote" by refusing to accept Plotkin, who has gained enmity of considerable proportion of FCC bar. Future policy also may rest on choice of 5 division chiefs under Plummer. If they're "Plotkin men" — and he has gathered devoted group around him — his thinking is likely to be perpetuated to considerable degree. Even Chairman Coy's future is drawn into speculation — whether he can now hold majority of commissioners, as in past; whether he will seek renomination before term expires June 30. Despite number of unpopular actions he's supported, political consensus seems to be he can have job if he wants it. Some think he wants to get out — because he needs more money, because of sheer physical strain of fierce intra-FCC and extra-FCC struggles, huge work load. "But Coy never runs from a fight," his friends say. Since Commission is always under attack, there's plenty to keep him going. Even this week, resolution to investigate Commission (H. Res. 214) was introduced by Rep. Bernard W. Kearney, Republican, of Gloversville , N.Y. He's member of Un-American Activities Committee, says he has reason to suspect group within FCC of pro-Communist leanings — an old story not likely to stand up, probably stemming from Lawyers Guild members on staff. t ^ ^ ^ What kind of broadcast boss Plummer will be, only time will tell. Up to color decision, he had firmest kind of support from industry as well as Commission. It's not known hov/ much he contributed to decision itself, notably its ill-starred bracket-standards gimmick (Vol. 6:35, et seq) — but he's held responsible. Credit for highly-commended engineering aspects of TV allocation plan must