Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

owner.

I can speak here from some knowledge of the small newspaper and small radio-station problem, as a newspaperman and a radio-station

The primary problem that faces the small newspaper, if facsimile should come in, would be the possibility of its demise, because of the fact that the small newspaper could not afford to construct a facsimile transmitting station. However, if a facsimile transmitting station were made available to him, as a common carrier, that problem would cease to exist for him. I think that something should be put into the bill to that effect.

I also feel very strongly as to section 7, which requires the Commission to equitably distribute the frequencies that exist. But I think here, too, the wording might be made stronger.

Let me tell you very briefly of a situation right here in the District of Columbia. Knowing full well that the Commission would grant a license preferably to one of the outlying areas of the District having a different name from the District of Columbia, a number of operators opened stations in Maryland and in Virginia, where the service of the station was primarily for the District of Columbia. From an engneering standpoint and from the standpoint of the commerce of those stations, they were District of Columbia stations.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would care to prepare a redraft of that section, we would be very glad to have you do it.

Mr. JOHNPOLL. I will try to do that, if that is all right with you, Senator. There are five such stations, of which two are in Silver Spring, one is in Arlington, and one in that vicinity, the advertising sales of which to District of Columbia merchants in proportion to their sales to merchants in their own areas are 80 percent in the District of Columbia, in one case, 40 percent District of Columbia in another case, 89 percent District of Columbia in a third case, 80 percent District of Columbia in a fourth case, and 85 percent District of Columbia in a fifth case.

Maybe the Commission feels, as it rightly should feel, I beliere that the economic issues involved should not be raised unless there is a definite policy that all of the stations will be wiped out. That is a legitimate and an honest theory on the part of the Commission.

But when it grants to areas outside of the District of Columbia these station permits, and thereby ties up a frequency for an area of as much as 280 miles in one case, and I think in the least of the cases for an area of 190 miles, and keeps worthy cities from having radio stations, I think the Commission is definitely in the wrong. And I think that instead of the Commission raising the question, “Should Alex andria have a station," it should raise the question, "Is the 25-millivolt per meter contour in the area now properly covered ?"

But the Commission will do nothing of the sort. Instead, the Commission asks, “Is it in the metropolitan district of New York?”

The city of Plainfield, N. J., with a population of 40,000 for the city proper, and 130,000 for the area immediately adjacent thereto, has never been able to get a frequency to put a radio station up, primarily because the Commission, if it came in in any case, would say, "You are a part of the metropolitan district of New York."

That is despite the fact that of the 22 stations in New York, 18 do not give adequate daytime service into Plainfield, N. J., and Plainfield itself has no local service.

The other point, and the one point on which I will disagree with di the work of the committee, Senator, is section 25.

I think it should be rewritten to read, in the case of newspapers, and here again I want to assure you that I am very sympathetic to newspapermen—that the newspaper shall not be granted a station in areas where it is the sole newspaper, and where there is reason to believe that no other frequencies exist.

That situation would obtain, for example, in the area around New Jersey and Connecticut, in the New York area, in parts of Iowa and Illinois, where one frequency might possibly be found, but I doubt

even that that could be found. i

I think a specific rule should be put in there which would state that that would be the only time that the Commission could consider newspapers as being a monopoly.

Because if they have the only frequency available, it is apparent Is that nobody else can get in there. And that might create the threat ti" of a monopoly from both the commercial and the political point of

view.
Fr Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ,

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Johnpoll.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Johnpoll is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BERNARD K. JOHNPOLL

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DUE.

I should like to first stre the point that censoring of radio programs is a tbreat to the freedom of speech of this country. This point, I think, will be contested by no one, least of all the Federal Communications Commission and its members. But I believe that censorship of economic, political, or social theories by operators of radio stations is as much a threat to that freedom as censorship by the Federal Communications Commission.

As I understand this bill it simply-in the case of political censorship—lays this down a policy that all sides to all political questions should be heard equally.

Unless my years as a Washington reporter went to waste I think I can do a pretty good job of analyzing bills that are before congressional committees.

I feel this is a necessary and just regulation. I can cite several cases where fer such a regulation would be of great use. Particularly so in the case of smaller uno stations. I know of one case-which I cannot discuss except if the names are

deleted—where a local politician received a grant for a radio station in up-State New York and proceeded to blithely ignore his opponents' pleas for time. His

answer to all requests for time were simply that there was none available on Co the day sought. When he finally yielded he gave time which gave him a definite

advantage.

I feel that this segment of the proposed law should, if anything, be strengthened.

It should assure each political candidate equal time on the air with the provision " that failure by a station operator or of a network to grant such time be considered grounds for revocation of license.

I also feel that news commentators should be forced, during election campaigns, to yield as much time to rebuttal as they may take in supporting the candidacy of a particular man or party.

There is another provision of this bill which I think merits the approval and perhaps even the acclaim of all those interested in the radio industry. I speak of that portion of the bill which divides the FCC's activities into two separate portions. One of these is to be specifically limited to broadcasting problems the other limited to communications.

With that in mind I should like to propose some simple additions to the bill which would better effectuate a program of freedom of speech and press and more adequately meet the Nation's needs in the field of radio and communications.

First I feel that facsimile transmission be put under communications instead of broadcast. As a public carrier censorship would be impossible and all newspapers would have equal access to the benefits of the modern developments. Now these improvements are available only to the larger, wealthier ones.

TUN"

pulito

ITA

Secondly, I believe that a specific provision barring the limitation on the use of any one frequency for one station should be included to do away with the highly unfair clear-channel situation which makes it impossible for many parts of the country to have radio service of a local character.

Thirdly, I suggest that the bill specifically order the FCC to increase the band spread to 540 kilocycles to 1650 kilocycles with the provision that only stations of 250 or less watts in power may be constructed on these frequencies.

This is a very short presentation. I hope your questioning will bring out more detailed proposals, which I hope you will consider.

Generally, I favor this bill and all of its provisions. I feel more broadcasters would agree if they saw a complete picture of the work your committee has before it with regard to radio.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee has had a number of statements submitted by persons who were unable to appear in person, and if there is no objection on the part of the committee, these will be made & part of the record, and will be printed in the printed hearings.

I have particularly in mind a statement submitted to me a few days ago by Mr. Caldwell, a very eminent radio lawyer and at one time counsel of the Commission. Any other statements expressing views concerning this problem also will go into the record.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT BY LOUIS G. CALDWELL

KIRKLAND, FLEMING, GREEN, MARTIN & ELLIS
Main Office: Chicago, Ill.

WASHINGTON 4, D. C., June 18, 1947.
Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WHITE: This letter is for the purpose of correcting an erroneous impression which may have arisen from the testimony of Frank Roberson, Esq., who appeared before your committee on June 17 to testify in behalf of the Federal Communications Bar Association regarding the procedural provisions of S. 1333. Mr. Roberson correctly included my name as a member of the legislative committee of the association but in doing so unintentionally left room for the inference that I am in agreement with the opinions and conclusions he presented.

Actually, I disagree with those opinions and conclusions in numerous important respects which I shall not now attempt to set forth in detail. The disagreement extends, in whole or in part, to most of the provisions he discussed. I regard most of these provisions as undesirable, defective, or unneces. sary. I may add that I also strongly oppose most of the substantive features of the bill, particularly those which recognize or expand any power of censorship or other control over programs in the Federal Communications Commission.

I shall deeply appreciate it if you will have this letter made part of the record. Sincerely,

Louis G. CALDWELL.

STATEMENT BY JOHN CARSON, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE, U. S. A.

Mr. Chairman, my name is John Carson. I am the director of the Washington offices of the Cooperative League, U. S. A., and National Cooperatives, Inc. These are the great national consumer-purchasing cooperative organizations with which more than 10,000,000 of our people are affiliated.

In this instance, I am appearing for the Ohio Farm Bureau Cooperatives which is a member of the league and which has asked me to present a statement with reference to S. 1333. I am confident that what I have to present, however, will have the endorsement of every organization of consumer cooperatives and of every individual member of consumer cooperatives.

I want to speak with restraint about this bill. I am conscious of the problems involved for the Congress in writing legislation in this general field. I am conscious of the problems which confront the administrative authority. And I

am both conscious and sympathetic about the problems which confront the MIL licensees.

I think it was in 1928 that I, in the capacity of a newspaperman, put together the first legislative bill, S. 6, to create the Commission on Communications. Thereafter I helped to direct the investigation which preceded the writing of the bill we finally offered to the Congress. I labored with the technicians and the lawyers throughout those struggles and learned to have great respect for the problems involved.

In those days we were concerned, primarily, with the problem which is sug. gested by the word "censorship.” I think each of us-and I know for myself— were determined to prevent a Government authority having the right to censor the information transmitted over the radio and thus the opportunity to destroy freedom of speech. Likewise, I was determined to keep from Government the

opportunity to make the radio an instrument of political propaganda. In later be: years, I learned that while we protected the radio from censorship by Govern

ment, we transferred the right of censorship to the licensees and operators of radio stations. That was an interesting development. We, who were afraid that our public servants might impair or injure our rights to freedom, did not realize that we would intrust private citizens with that authority of censorship. That problem still remains with us as I shall reveal to you.

I desired that our cooperatives would appear to testify on this legislation and hoped that our witness would be the president of the Cooperative League, U. S. A. He could not be here. You will have to endure with me, therefore. I wanted our cooperatives to be here because our cooperatives are beginning to own radio facilities, and we will shortly be operating radio facilities. We shall operate them, not for profit but for public service. I am anticipating this development because I think we may be able to establish standards, practical standards, which we can later present to you and thus assist you in deciding whether licensees operate a station “in the public interest."

That is the greatest contribution we can make, just now, to democracy, I believe. The welfare of democracy depends upon the enlightenment of the people. The radio is the greatest instrument of enlightenment and of education that we have. I think I can pledge to you now that our consumer cooperative organizations will labor, zealously, and at all times to make every radio license they have of service to the public interest. We pledge ourselves to do everything in our power to assist the people to know that they are the primary owner of radio facilities and that they have every right, and every obligation, to assume and exercise the responsibility which must go with ownership.

We shall not be interested in using the radio for profit-making purposes. That interest, which unfortunately always becomes the dominant interest in our economy, will not stand as a barrier to shut off our view of what should be the dominant interestthe public service. I hope we shall make licensees acutely conscious of how temporary their stewardship may become. That inspires another thought.

Perhaps the Commission could be ordered to compel the licensees to broadcast over their stations and for a reasonable period prior to renewal of their licenses, the fact that the licensee was reapplying and that a hearing would be held at a certain time and place and that the Commission desired the assistance of listeners in determining whether the licensee had actually served the public interest. It would be a great service to democracy if we could thus inspire our people to become actively interested in the work of their Government in this field.

Very few listeners realize that they, along with other citizens, own the ether and that the radio licensees are just temporary licensees. Very few listeners are alert to the authority they have if they would assert themselves. Very few people know of the unconscionable profits made by a large number of the licensees and that that profit-making opportunity is dependent entirely upon the grant-without charge of the publicly owned ether to the licensee. I think it is the obligation of Government to seek every means of informing the people and of inspiring them to become interested.

Now, as to sections 331 and 332, on pages 25 and 26 of the bill. I am pleased with this effort to compel broadcasters to disclose who they are and what they are and who is paying the bills and who is calling the tunes.

But I wish the restraints put upon broadcasters were made a bit stronger. Even though most of the men and women who are permitted by the public to use these publicly owned facilities are honorable men and women, there are just enough who are unworthy to serve as a threat to the continuation of this form

I can speak here from some knowledge of the small newspaper and small radio-station problem, as a newspaperman and a radio-station

owner.

The primary problem that faces the small newspaper, if facsimile should come in, would be the possibility of its demise, because of the fact that the small newspaper could not afford to construct a facsimile transmitting station. However, if a facsimile transmitting station were made available to him, as a common carrier, that problem would cease to exist for him. I think that something should be put into the bill to that effect.

I also feel very strongly as to section 7, which requires the Commission to equitably distribute the frequencies that exist. But I think here, too, the wording might be made stronger.

Let me tell you very briefly of a situation right here in the District of Columbia. Knowing full well that the Commission would grant a license preferably to one of the outlying areas of the District having a different name from the District of Columbia, a number of operators opened stations in Maryland and in Virginia, where the service of the station was primarily for the District of Columbia. From an engineering standpoint and from the standpoint of the commerce of those stations, they were District of Columbia stations,

The CHAIRMAN. If you would care to prepare a redraft of that section, we would be very glad to have you do it.

Mr. JOHNPOLL. I will try to do that, if that is all right with you, Senator. There are five such stations, of which two are in Silver Spring, one is in Arlington, and one in that vicinity, the advertising sales of which to District of Columbia merchants in proportion to their sales to merchants in their own areas are 80 percent in the District of Columbia, in one case, 40 percent District of Columbia in another case, 89 percent District of Columbia in a third case, 80 percent District of Columbia in a fourth case, and 85 percent District of Columbia in a fifth case.

Maybe the Commission feels, as it rightly should feel, I believe that the economic issues involved should not be raised unless there is a definite policy that all of the stations will be wiped out. That is a legitimate and an honest theory on the part of the Commission.

But when it grants to areas outside of the District of Columbia these station permits, and thereby ties up a frequency for an area of as much as 280 miles in one case, and I think in the least of the cases for an area of 190 miles, and keeps worthy cities from having radio stations, I think the Commission is definitely in the wrong. And I think that instead of the Commission raising the question, “Should Alexandria have a station,” it should raise the question, “Is the 25-millivolt per meter contour in the area now properly covered ?"

But the Commission will do nothing of the sort. Instead, the Commission asks, "Is it in the metropolitan district of New York?”

The city of Plainfield, N. J., with a population of 40,000 for the city proper, and 130,000 for the area immediately adjacent thereto, has never been able to get a frequency to put a radio station up, primarily because the Commission, if it came in in any case, would say, "You are a part of the metropolitan district of New York.'

That is despite the fact that of the 22 stations in New York, 18 do not give adequate daytime service into Plainfield, N. J., and Plainfield itself has no local service.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »