Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1953)

3 COURT OKAYS PRO FOOTBALL TV BLACKOUTS: Whoever was winner in this week's decision in govt, anti-trust suit against National Football League's TV restrictions — and question is still being debated — there's little doubt about who the losers were: The public, the TV stations, the TV networks — in varying degrees — lost the case, on basis of complex 21-page decision handed down in Philadelphia Federal Court by Judge Allen K. Grim. For despite fact that Govt, won some points in suit, initiated 2 years ago by Truman Administration, court rejected its major contention: That all restrictions on TV & radio imposed by a league on its member teams are unlawful. When it brought suit. Govt, made clear that if it won, next step was to proceed against restraints on telecasts of college football, professional boxing — "all restrictions of this type, wherever imposed" (Vol. 7:41). Judge Grim refused to give Govt, the blank check it wanted. Each such case, he said, must be decided on its own set of facts. Some TV restrictions are unreasonable and illegal; others are perfectly reasonable and legal, even desirable. Principal points in Judge Grim's decision: (1) NFL has right to black out telecasts of League games to stations within 75 mi. of areas where League football games are in progress. NFL Commissioner Bert Bell hailed this ruling, said "we won the most important part of our case." (2) NFL cannot restrict telecasts of games to League cities when home team is playing out of town (beyond 75 mi.). (3) NFL must wipe all radio restrictions from its books because "there is no evidence whatsoever indicating any adverse effects of radio broadcasting" on gate. * # * * Upholding blackouts, Judge Grim ruled: "An allocation of marketing territories for the purpose of restricting competition is not always illegal. This particular restriction promotes competition more than it restrains it, is a reasonable one and a legal restraint of trade." In its other major points, decision appeared to conflict with Supreme Court ruling 3 days earlier that professional baseball was outside the scope of anti-trust laws. Judge Grim made this comment: "The only restriction alleged in the baseball case was in the internal operation of professional baseball itself. The present case, on the other hand, primarily concerns restrictions imposed by NFL on the sale of radio & TV rights. Therefore, the present case basically concerns the League's restraint of interstate commerce in the radio & TV industries." Neither side has indicated whether it plans to appeal, and attorneys for both sides as well as TV networks and NARTB withheld comment pending study of decision. Govt, and NFL attorneys have 30 days to submit briefs to be used in formulating formal decree — which will help clear up some disputed points in decision. As to the immediate pro football TV picture: There probably won't be any noticeable change for some time, for better or worse. Individual teams' right to ban TV never was questioned by Govt., which explained its case thus in 1951: "It is hoped that this action will make broadcasts and telecasts of professional football games more readily available to the public by removing restrictions on the right of each football club to determine for itself whether and on what terms it will sell its broadcast and telecast rights." 4 CPs GRANTED, 3 PROPOSED, 2 GIVEN UP: FCC produced 4 CPs this week, one of them educational, issued 3 initial decisions, had one CP turned back and prepared to take CP away from another grantee who failed to build. The grants: Lake Charles, La., KPLC, Ch. 7; Cumberland, Md. , WTBO, Ch. 17; Pittsfield, Mass. , WBEC , Ch. 64; Miami, Fla., Lindsey Hopkins School, Ch. 2 (educational). The winners of initial decisions: Sacramento, Cal., KFBK, Ch. 10; Portland, Me., WGAN, Ch. 13; Amarillo, Tex., KLYN, Ch. 7. CP relinquished was for WOTV, Lakeland, Fla. (Ch. 16). Initial decision requiring KIRV, Denver (Ch. 20) to turn in its grant was issued when grantee failed to show up at hearing to refute charges of malingering. In Lake Charles, competitor Sowela TV Inc. dropped out under option to purchase 50% of grant. Cumberland grantee is 32.5% owned by Howard Chernoff who also