it is a very rare thing that the Commission votes unanimously; a very rare thing.

Mr. BEAMER. In other words, what you intend to indicate is that most of the issues are controversial?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. They certainly are.

Mr. BEAMER. Too much so for you to take a firm stand on anything that is involved?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. It is very difficult.

Mr. BEAMER. Now, may I ask, why do you think that condition exists? Is it because of weakness in existing law or because of some failure of your Commission to establish some specific policy?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. Because it is a judgment factor, basically, and it is not circumscribed by any fine definitive measuring stick, such as-well, let us say, the Power Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission has. They have a rate case. And, the figures are there as to what they are earning and what they need to attract capital. So, you have something definitive.

I have served on a public regulatory commission. I was chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. And it is not such a difficult thing because there is not the judgment factor there that is involved in deciding who should have a license.

Mr. BEAMER. Would it be possible to make it easier for you to have this definitive factor to which you refer if you had some kind of specific policy established?

I am referring again to 2 or 3 factors that I mentioned last week. One was the type of ownership, which was indicated, and the antidiscrimination feature.

If some particular policy were firmly established by the Commission, then would it not be rather easy to say: This is the regulation, this is the law, it is going to hurt somebody. It is going to help somebody. But, this is the way we are doing it.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Well, I feel in this type of operation of licensing in the public interest, the factors have to be taken into consideration and you have to weigh all of them in each case and then they differ in each case, and I do not see how you could set down and be specific and say you shall do it this way or you shall do it that way.

I think the public would suffer if you did.

Mr. BEAMER. I am really asking for information. Now, before I leave that subject-do you recall, I only saw this in the newspaperssaw an account of the station, channel 13 of Indianapolis. That was on a 4-and-3 vote, as I understand.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I understand that that is a

matter

Mr. BEAMER. I thought that it had been decided.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I cannot talk about it.

Mr. BEAMER. I thought it had been completely decided and announced. That is reason that I asked the question. I thought it had been completely reported.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I am trying to recall-I could be wrong about this. I think it was a 4, 1, 1; 1, not voting.

Mr. BEAMER. But the reports apparently indicated that it had been passed and final action had been taken?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. Sir, I can tell you what the vote was. I can discuss it to that extent. I believe that is correct. The General Counsel will stop me if I am in error.

I think what I said was correct.

Mr. BEAMER. All right. Last week in answer to one of my questions you stated that the Commission could not discriminate against out-of-State purchasers of TV stations.

Now, do you recall, or do you mean to say that under the Communications Act you do not have the power to inquire into whether a transfer is in the public interest, if the purchaser owns other TV properties in the United States?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. Oh, no; I did not mean to say that. Mr. BEAMER. Sir?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I did not mean to say that, because when a transfer is made-a sale we are talking about now.

Mr. BEAMER. What?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. I say we are talking about a sale; a transfer, which is the sale.

We can look to see if it is in the public interest that that transfer be made.

If I am buying a station from you in Fort Wayne, and I file an application, the Commission can look into it to see whether it is in the public interest for me to own that station; see whether I am a proper person; whether I am a proper individual.

Mr. BEAMER. Is there a specific provision in the Communications Act that provides for this feature?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Well, I think I had better read this part of section 310, which is the sale and transfer provision.

310. (b) Such application shall be disposed of as if proposed transferee or assignee were making application under section 308 for the permit or license in question; but in acting thereon

and this is the important part of it

The Commission may not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the transfer, assignment, or disposal of the permit or license to a person other than the proposed transferee or assignee.

Mr. BEAMER. In other words, do I understand then that it is possible under this interpretation that some organization could assume, or secure a monoply of television broadcasting by obtaining a property that had been granted by the Commission to some other individual?

Commission MCCONNAUGHEY. No. No, Congressman, because the Commission has a rule where no one can own more than 5 VHF stations and 2 UHF stations.

Mr. BEAMER. Suppose those are all in an immediate territory or in one community. I understand that is true. But suppose they are all within a very small radius, comparatively small radius, and we have overlapping.

It is conceivable then that what you say would be true, where they have 1 in New York, 1 in Chicago, 1 in Los Angeles, and have 5 different stations widely scattered throughout the United States. But, I am referring specifically to stations within a small community. Suppose that some organization gets control of all of the television or radio stations within a small area or within a certain State.

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. That goes into the overlapping

feature.

If there is overlapping, then the Commission does take that into consideration. And, you understand that it cannot have more than 1 in any 1 community.

Mr. BEAMER. I know, but one in a community is going to cover 45 to 100 miles in area and there could be overlapping there. There could be monopoly in that area.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Where that goes into overlapping, we take into consideration the question of overlapping; it depends upon how much overlapping facilities are involved.

Mr. BEAMER. I will conclude this, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take too much time. I am wondering if this is another occasion where the decision was made unanimously or there was this interpretation

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. Sir?

Mr. BEAMER. Is your Commission unanimous in the interpretations that you have given this morning?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Oh, no. Anything that I have said here, I have read from the act and stated what the law is: but with reference with specific cases, the Commission has different ideas. I expect that is the reason why we have seven members and the majority controls, and there are different ideas about different applications. Mr. BEAMER. Now, one further question.

And, I am referring to this because of the statement that you made last year. I am quoting from your statement.

In fact, newspaper ownership may constitute an asset to an applicant. The fact that an applicant has operated a newspaper in the community in question, may demonstrate its ability to perform an outstanding public service in that community, as well as its ability to respond to the community's particular needs. Now, I am reading only one portion of your statement, and I must admit, you do not approve of the antidiscrimination bill, but I want to point out the fact that I am wondering if we are going to have an antidiscrimination policy, and therefore I am asking again if perhaps the Commission had not better consider some uniformality of making exceptions here and there in order that we will know once and for all whether the ownership of a newspaper is going to be considered an asset or deterrent in securing a television license or a radio allocation. Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I must say that depends on the facts in each case. We have been accused pretty strongly of being pronewspaper. And then we have again been accused of being antinewspaper.

I feel that we are neither one. I think we have to take the facts in each case as they are cited.

If a newspaper is a dominant figure and almost has a monopoly in the community and has newspapers dotted all over the area and if it also has radio facilities in that area-in other words, it is a dominant factor and has almost a monopoly in that area, then I think the Commission has a red flag put up before it.

On the contrary, the statement I made, I stick with, because I believe that. I think that many times newspapers due to their facilities and their knowledge and their background are in an excellent position to render a fine service in the field.

Mr. BEAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I want to commend the Commission. I hope you do not

think that any of my remarks were derogatory. I am trying to establish some kind of formula, if it is possible to do so. Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MACK. Mr. Rhodes, do you have any questions?

Mr. RHODES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just have one I would like to ask. Does your Commission concern itself with monopoly censorship such as was recently imposed by Columbia Broadcasting Company on Eric Severeid?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. No, sir; that is programing and you folks have told us we have nothing to say about it.

Mr. RHODES. One other question, Mr. Chairman. Last week you talked about the mortality rate of these U stations. I believe you said there was one last year, is that correct?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. That has been corrected in the record. I said there was one less this year. There was a mortality last year of 14, as I recall, and 13, as I recall, came on the air, so we had 91 U's a year ago; we have 90 today.

In other words, there were 14 off the air and 13 came on.

Mr. RHODES. What has been the mortality rate the last few years of these U stations?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Just a minute. I will give it to you. Twenty-nine went off the air in 1954; 27 in 1955; and 14 in 1956. It is going down.

Mr. RHODES. What was the highest number and what is the number today?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. The highest number on the air was

121.

Mr. RHODES. And now it is 91?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. And now it is 90; that is correct. In other words, some go off and some come on.

Mr. RHODES. In my district there is no TV station, although there have been two U stations. They both have been forced to close. Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. Where was that, Mr. Congressman? Mr. RHODES. It is in Reading, Pa.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MACK. Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with the hearings before this committee in February and in April 1953 before there was a grant of VHF stations in a large group in June and July of the same year?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. No, sir; I was not on the Commission. I am not familiar.

Mr. SPRINGER. You are not familiar with any of what was said at that time with reference to UHF-VHF?

Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. No, sir. Commissioner Hyde was here and he can make a statement.

Mr. SPRINGER. I am sure Mr. Hyde is familiar with all I am going to say.

Mr. MACK. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes.

Mr. MACK. You are talking about the reassignment when they lifted the freeze. That was in 1952 I believe.

Mr. SPRINGER. 1953, before they let the great group of stations in June and July of 1953.

STATEMENT OF ROSEL H. HYDE, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Commissioner HYDE. The freeze was lifted in April of 1952 and in July we started the licensing process, but as Congressman Springer has indicated, we were still moving ahead with our processing and licensing activity through 1953.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is right, and most of them were let after these hearings in 1953, were they not?

Commissioner HYDE. I would not say most of them, but a substantial number of them.

Mr. SPRINGER. The question of UHF and VHF was gone into. It was the consensus of the Commission, if we can believe the testimony that was given at that time, and I think we can, by Mr. Walker and Mr. Hyde, that in order for UHF to survive you have to have roughly an 18 months' lead over VHF in the establishment and the assignment of stations. That wasn't done. That is all past history. You are now trying, as I understand it, to establish the intermixture between UHF and VHF and you are in that process at this time? Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. That is right.

Mr. SPRINGER. Could you tell this committee in a few words as you can what you feel has been accomplished in that effort today?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I feel that the markets were intermixed in 1952 and I feel that the Commission took a very significant step last June looking toward the utilization of UHF when they made the report to the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, which report was approved by practically all the members of that committee, in attempting to get UHF started and off the ground by deintermixing and designating certain areas where it was feasible. to be UHF areas, and that is what we have done today.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will you state in so far as there is a record where those areas are?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. They are in Fresno, Albany, Evansville, Peoria, Elmira, and Springfield.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is a total of seven, is that correct?
Commissioner McCONNAUGHEY. So far.

be taken up.

There are still others to

Mr. SPRINGER. Without naming them, how many other areas are under consideration for deintermixture at this time?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. I think five. There are 5 other specific cases and 20 additional petitions.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is roughly then approximately 25 that are under

consideration at this time.

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. That is right.

Mr. SPRINGER. If all of these 25 plus the 7 where it is now going on are fully put into effect will this accomplish deintermixture?

Commissioner MCCONNAUGHEY. No. It will be a step, however, and it will encourage, I believe, the development of the ultra high frequency, which has to be utilized, which must be utilized, in this country in order to get nationwide competitive television system. I think every knowledgeable person in the business knows that, regardless of who they are. Congress realizes it. I think it is going to be a very substantial step forward.