Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

2-TElEVISION DIGEST NOVEMBER 11, 1963 setting limits on length & frequency of commercials— would be "most unwise." He said "some stations have gone well beyond the limits of what the public has to put up with." Ironically, Mossischmn. of House! "Freedom of Information" Committee, yet would like to. see FCC restrict "freedom of commercials." * Led by Henry, Commission witnesses— all were there except Comr. Hyde— vigorously defended its authority. Even Comr. Ford, one of 3 members who voted against proposal, clearly saw Commission’s jurisdiction. And Comr. Loevinger, who arrived at FCC too late to vote on issue, defended | FCC powers. He added that although he wasn't commenting on merits of proposal, he thought chances • were "slight" that Commission will go ahead with plan as proposed. FCC said its authority comes from "public interest" provision of Act as well as its powers to classify services of stations (303a) and prescribe nature of service (303b). It also pointed to Supreme Court decisions, claiming if a matter can be dealt with on case -by-case basis, it can be dealt with by rule. Loevinger said if FCC didn't have right in area, it couldn't tell educational stations not to carry commercials. Commission is submitting legal memorandum supporting its view. When Pres. Collins filed NAB's legal brief. Rep. Harris (D-Ark. ) said both should be studied carefully. But Harris had word of caution for FCC. He said he's concerned about "important principle of self -regulation [and] what kind of system we're going to have. . . Sometimes we get persuaded by complaints. . . If we proceed with this we may have transition to [British system] and I wouldn't like it. . . I have faith in free enterprise. . . I don't know if it's wise to penalize everybody for sake of a few." Harris also said it's "dangerous trend" when administrative agencies move into area to handle problems not originally conceived of and not written into law. He said FCC might be able to build court case for its authority, but he advised Commission to seek otheh ways to handle problem "before we extend our arms out beyond what the Act intended. " Commerce Committee chmn. also cautioned broadcasters: Committee has "leaned over backwards" in past to give industry opportunity to police itself. "But in all candor I'm not altogether satisfied. Patience could run out. I cannot too strongly suggest that the industry has got to meet its responsibilities." Commission isn't "extending jurisdiction," merely implementing present policy, Henry stated. Broadcasters know FCC has policy against over -commercialization, but they don't know how much is too much, Henry said. While strongly advocating definite standards, he also stressed that Commission "has reached no conclusions" on rule-making. He explained choices: Continue case-by-case approach; policy statement with definite guidelines to be employed at renewal time; comprehensive rule dealing with various categories of stations; rule directed only to certain categories with remaining stations treated on case -by-case basis. He backed off from what most people interpreted as FCC's original aim— adoption of NAB Codes. Rep. Younger (R-Cal. ) wanted to know how FCC was going to administer all this when it can't handle present workload. Henry agreed it would be difficult. Younger thought Henry had defeated his own cause, saidalso he’s concerned about stretching "public interest” statute. Younger also asserted he can't see how FCC can set limits on commercials without getting into rate setting, which is forbidden by Act because stations aren't common carriers. Rogers asserted that the only powers FCC has are those that are affirmatively granted to it by Congress. Rogers asked Henry if it was his position that FCC has carte blanche unless prevented by law? "No,” said Henry. "What can't you do?" asked Rogers. "We can't fix rates," answered Henry. Henry said that up to now complaints had been handled by staff, many times through discussion with station personnel. Then why use rule-making when FCC has successfully handled complaints? asked Rogers. "It's been unsuccessful and there have been more commercials," said Henry. Commenting on Rogers bill, Loevinger said that by specifically prohibiting FCC from setting commercial limits, it is implied that FCC can do an5dhing else not specifically prohibited. Rogers said that view is reversal of statutory construction: "It's that kind of thinking that's going to get this group ‘ into trouble." Rep. Bennett (R-Mich. ) thought FCC was getting into judgments as to how much profit a station can make. He also wondered what difference was between regulating commercials and programming, e. g. limiting number of Westerns station can carry. Henry said that's not his intention, but that j there's substantial amoxmt of opinion that FCC could control programming. Let’s not cross that bridge