Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

2— TELEVISION DIGEST JANUARY 14, 1963 ever, conceded that "small percentage of inaccuracies" is inevitable because of large number of factors involved in making surveys. House Commerce Committee Chmn. Harris (D-Ark.) wouldn't comment about either FTC's action or his own Regulatory Agencies Subcommittee's iy2-year-old investigation into some subject (Vol. 2:53 pi). However, he's expected to hold his own ratings hearings this session. COMPROMISE ON CATV-CONTROL LAW POSSIBLE: FCC, telecasters & CATV operators may be coming to meeting of minds on federal CATV-control legislation. Though National Commvmity TV Assn, still mC'intains "no-law" position, somfi prominent operators have been feeling FCC out. Objective of CATV forces is to get law they can live with — and get FCC "umbrella" to protect them from possible onerous state & local regulation. In lawyers' language, they want federal govt, "to preempt the field" as it does in broadcasting. Our impression is that Commission isn't inclined that way, at the moment, and that FCC also wants to give station operators greater protection against duplication of their network-originated programs than CATV seems willing to go for. For example. Commission, in proposing rules regarding microwaves to serve CATVs, wonts to prohibit duplication by CATV 30 days before or after local station carries program. CATV interests keep plumping for prohibition of simultaneous duplication — only. FCC has made CATV legislation its prime request of Congress. At this writing, there's simply no judging what kind of compromise, if any, will emerge. FCC is fairly adamant, believes it has strong hand because of CATV's growing concern over state & local moves to regulate. CATV forces, on other hand, feel they have the "absolute weapon" in Rep. Harris (D-Ark.), chmn. of Commerce Committee, whose public opposition to CATV legislation is stronger than any position he has ever taken in TV-radio. Here ore excerpts from his speech at NCTA convention last year (Vol. 2:26 p2) : "FCC cannot regulate CATV as a common carrier. ... No action has been taken [on a CATV bill] and none is contemplated. . . . The problem con no longer be regarded as acute. . . . Some cities or counties seem to be attempting to regulate through insistence upon non-duplication agreements [but] I would expect that CATV operators will not permit a host of divergent & conflicting local regulations to spring up. The pertinent court decisions in these matters should be brought to the attention of the local authorities and their jurisdiction should be challenged in the courts, if necessary." (You might ask him for full text.) • • • • Another decision adverse to CATV was handed down by FCC late last week when it granted 4 vhf translators in Claremont, N.H., over objections of CATV operator Bellows Falls Coble Corp. Translator applicant Claremont TV Inc. had asserted that chances of interference to CATV's pickups were negligible — and that CATV could use translator signals if interference proved greater than expected and ineradicable. Commission went along with translator applicant's argument — and went further. It asserted that its translator rules were meant to protect individual set owner's reception — not CATV's. Commission said CATV operator has "remedies available to him to avoid or reduce interference which are imavailable to the individual"— such os moving receiving antenna or using microwave to pipe signals in from long distances. "This does not mean, of course," Commission said, "that the Commission will close its eyes to any and all instances in which the establishment of a translator would cause interference to the reception of broadcast signals by a CATV system." Commission said it wouldn't be happy if translators deliberately interfered with CATV. "We recognize, of course," FCC went on, "that if the CATV system suffers interference from the vhf translators, the direct reception by CATV subscribers will also suffer. However, this does not necessarily mean that the subscribers to the system will lose all service, inasmuch as the CATV system can also pick up the vhf translator broadcast signals. In addition, the CATV subscribers will be able to receive the direct broadcast signals from the translators like any other viewers if they wish." Comrs. Lee & Ford dissented, latter issuing statement asserting that majority is discriminating against CATV. He'd hove a hearing or order translators to protect CATV against interference. He said majority's thinking wasn't "entirely without merit," however. But, he added, if there's distinction to be made between interference to individuals and to CATV, it should be achieved after regular rule-making process.