WSM, NASHVILLE 3, TENN., March 17, 1948. Hon. Senator CHARLES W. TOBEY, U. S. Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: This is in reply to your letter of March 6 enclosing a copy of S. 2231, introduced by Senator Johnson of Colorado. From the viewpoint of one who has been in radio for 25 years, I wish respectfully to point out that this bill is not in the public interest. We are therefore unalterably opposed to its passage. The matters dealt with in S. 2231, high power and clear channels, have been the subject of exhaustive hearings conducted over a 3-year period by the Congress's board of technical radio experts, the Federal Communications Commission, involving more than 6,000 pages of testimony, much of it of a highly technical nature. In this situation, we very earnestly and respectfully submit that the public interest can best be served if the Federal Communications Commission is left free to deal with these highly technical matters and to reach its decision without the compulsion that would result from the passage of S. 2231. S. 2231 would be a terrific blow to rural and small-town listeners. The history of clear-channel broadcasting shows that it was instituted for the benefit of these listeners. In explaining its reason for the assignment of clear channels in 1928, the Federal Radio Commission, in its second annual report, said that "forty channels were set apart for stations of sufficient power on clear channels to give good service to rural and remote listeners." At the twenty-eighth annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation, held December 12, 1946, a resolution was adopted reading in part: "We therefore firmly oppose any reduction in the number of clear-channel stations." Will the Congress take away the farmer's radio service by destroying clear-channel broadcasting? We believe it is very clear that when all of the issues are fully understood this question will be answered in the negative. If S. 2231 should become law, the United States will by its passage throw away the precious rights which it now has, under the North American regional broadcasting agreement, and the few channels remaining free from interference at night from stations in other countries would be destroyed. Official representatives of such other countries will treat the passage of S. 2231 as a go-ahead signal to occupy with equal power the wave lengths presently assigned as clear channels in this country. This would seriously impair radio service not only near the borders but over extended areas in the United States, I have attended nearly all of the engineering conferences held in connection with the present treaty and only last November attended, as an accredited member of the American delegation, an engineering conference in Havan which was a preliminary to the negotiation of a new treaty covering the use of broadcast frequencies in the North American region. Direct contact with representatives of the other nations has convinced me that Mexico and Cuba are most anxious to place stations on our few remaining clear channels. Cuba proposed in November that our channels be made available to them in spite of the fact that this ultimately would destroy radio service to many of our own people and would forever prevent our use of high power on these channels. Every engineering study of the adequacy of present radio service shows without question that: 1. Use of the new clear channels for allocation of additional stations will not provide rural and small-town service over the entire United States. 2. Clear channel skywave service is absolutely essential in any allocation structure designed to provide one or more services to rural and small-town America, 3. The nighttime skywave service given by a 50-kilowatt clear-channel station does not have the required degree of reliability because the signal strength is too low to overcome static a large part of the time. 4. The only means through which reliable nighttime service can be given to rural and small-town listeners is through the use of 500- to 750-kilowatt power on clear channels. Mexico now has one 250-kilowatt and two 100-kilowatt stations in operation on their clear channels. No station in this country would want to be assigned to these channels because of interference which they would suffer at night. Conversely the best way for us to keep our channels clear is to use adequate power on them both to render a reliable service in this country and to discourage their use in other countries. In conclusion, we point out that there are many in accuracies in the memorandum printed in the Congressional Record of February 26, 1948, and in your letter of March 6, which we are sure you would not have permitted to be circulated if you had been fully informed, and which we are confident will be completely refuted at the hearing on S. 2231. For your information, Radio Station WSM is affiliated with the National Broadcasting Co. network, but is not in any way owned by the National Broadcasting Co. nor is it in any sense property of that network. This station, like the majority of clear-channel stations, is individually owned. At the hearings on S. 2231, scheduled for April 5, we should like to have the privilege of appearing and introducing testimony. Sincerely yours, TEXAS JOHN H. DEWITT, Jr., President. KELLY BELL, Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Nacogdoches, Tex. March 20, 1948. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you very much for your inquiry of March 17, 1948, with regard to the Johnson bill, S. 2231. I am in favor of your bill and strongly believe that no station should have over a power of 50,000 watts. As a mater of fact, I believe that it was a mistake to grant any station that much power in the first place, but I realize that at this stage that step cannot be retraced. I have no objection to anyone knowing how I feel on this subject. The HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, United States Senator, United States Senate, KELLY BELL, Owner, Station KOSF. BOHANNON & PRESCOTT, Dallas, Tex., March 22, 1948. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your communication of March 17, 1948, concerning Senate Bill 2231, which provides for the duplication of clear channels and limits the power of such stations to 50,000 watts, has been received in this office. I own interests in several AM radio stations in Texas, and my partner and I represent AM radio stations in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana. In all stations in which we are interested, either as licensee, permittee or legal representative; operate, for the most part, in small market areas. The one exception to this is Denver, Colo. I believe, as a result of representing many stations, that we are in a position to know something about the problems of radio stations operating in small market areas. I can say, unequivocally, that we are in favor of your bill because it will provide hundreds of communities with radio coverage which they are otherwise denied under existing conditions, mainly unavailable frequencies. In most of the communities where we have been fortunate enough to find a frequency, we have been able to locate only on daytime frequencies, thereby denying the communities local night time service. I need not discuss with you the importance of local radio service to a community. It has gained its place in the homes of American people and is an integral part of community life. The local radio station is a very popular public-service institution in the various communities, and almost every community which has a population of over 5,000 people is desirous of some sort of local radio coverage. As you know, radio stations, for the most part, contribute free of charge about 30% of their time to programs in the public interest. This allows the community to sponsor such important projects as churches, schools, community chests, good roads, and other worthy causes. You can readily see that a major station in a distant town cannot possibly give this sort of local service. Consider the fact, also, that the local merchant in small towns is denied the opportunity of the radio medium of advertising because he cannot afford to pay the price for regional, state-wide or national advertising; whereas such advertising on a local station at reasonable rates would be a service within his reach. There are many other advantages to opening up additional frequencies. One of the best arguments that the local independent station has is that statistics clearly indicate that 80 percent of the listening audience in a medium or small town, during the daytime, tunes in to the local station. This is, in all probability, due to the local programs of special interest hereinabove mentioned. To cite one instance of injustice, I would like to call your attention to Port Neches, Tex., where we represent applicants for a local radio station. Inasmuch as Port Neches is so close to Beaumont and Houston, it makes it too expensive to build a radio station there because of the high cost of directional antenna. The only course open, therefore, was to file on 1210 kilocycles, which is a clear channel, the dominant station being WCAU, Philadelphia. I hardly need point out that WCAU does not cover Port Neches, Tex., nor within 1,000 miles of it. Nevertheless, we are denied a radio station at Port Neches because of the protection that is given to the clear channel station in Philadelphia. Another instance is Freeport, Tex. We have been tied up in a clear-channel hearing on Freeport for a year, and the people of that area and locality have been denied local radio coverage because we happen to be on a channel which is dominated throughout the United States by a distant station which cannot possibly reach Freeport. The same situation exists at Pasadena, Tex., and, also, at Brownfield, Tex., where we represent applicants. In the latter case, the application has been on file for over a year and a half. There are many other instances which I could cite. To allow the major stations to increase their power above 50,000 watts would, in my judgment, be of no particular benefit to their listening audience, and would certainly further complicate matters in the equal distribution of frequencies throughout the Nation. Let us take the case of WCAU in Philadelphia on 1210 kilocycles. To allow this station to increase its power to say 750,000 watts, would forever prevent any community east of the Rocky Mountains from filing on this frequency or any adjacent frequency within 80 miles of Philadelphia. In my opinion, this would absolutely eliminate small communities from ever receiving proper local radio coverage under present engineering conditions. To allow this vast increase in power would be in effect granting these powerful stations an absolute monopoly to the detriment of the people in other areas of the country. I appreciate your writing me and asking my views on the subject, and I hope that the foregoing will be of some aid and assistance to Congress in arriving at an equitable decision in this matter. You may use this letter in any way you see fit. Ross K. PRESCOTT. GRAHAM BROADCASTING CO., Senator EDWIN C. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: It will be impossible for me, or any of my partners, to attend personally at the hearings on the Johnson bill, S. 2231. It is with pleasure that I give my opinion of the proposed Johnson bill provisions. There is no desire on my part that these views be kept confidential. It is the purpose of this letter to register enthusiastic approval of the Johnson bill, S. 2231. In my opinions, this is the most feasible way to provide some additional broadcasting facilities in an already crowded broadcast band. Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES W. TOBEY, GRAHAM BROADCASTING Co., By CLAY THOMPSON, Jr., Partner. KATL, HOUSTON 2, TEX., March 9, 1948. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: We are deeply grateful for your letter of March 3, setting out the stand Senator Johnson is taking on the current superpower question. As the operator of a comparatively small station, I believe that the granting of super power to any group would sound the death cry for free enterprise in broadcasting, completely eliminate network operation, and force most small- or medium-power broadcasting stations in this country out of business. In contrast to the granting of super power, Senator Johnson's bill to allow duplication of the 50,000-watt channels, would, indeed, assist to more equitably distribute badly needed AM frequencies and provide better community area coverage. Respectfully, KING H. ROBINSON, General Manager. HENDERSON COUNTY BROADCASTING CO., Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: Your letter of March 17, 1948, regarding the concern of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce over the question of duplicate licensing of radio stations on clear channels is before me. I am sincerely grateful to be able to voice my opinions as a small-market local-radiostation owner, and I shall write more or less as an engineer from which profession I earn my livelihood. As mentioned above, I am interested in two radio station construction permits both of which are located in small towns of 8,000 or less. I personally handled all engineering on the stations and am therefore thoroughly acquainted with the allocations problem as it exists today. In both cases a strictly local nonnetwork station was desired for the towns to be operated full time, but due to stringent allocations existing in these vicinities the only station available was a sort of hybrid type; that is, a local station on a regional channel. The Federal Communications Commission states in its publications that “(this) is not considered as making the best usage of the assignment." (Footnote, p. 3, FCC Standards of Good Engineering Practice Concerning Standard Broadcast Stations.) On this same page 3, the FCC also states that my two stations are not afforded any protection to interference from other stations or proposed stations because my stations are classified as so-called misfits. I was forced to select the frequencies of these two stations (1410 and 1470 kilocycles) while several perfectly good clear channels lay dormant so far as this section of the country is concerned. Likewise, under present rules and regulations my two communities must go without local nighttime radio service while several clear channels lay idly by. Now I bring up my point in this argument: Is this considered by the FCC as making the best usage of the clear channel assignment to permit only one station on each channel to serve the whole United States at night? Further, the percentage of local stations today as compared to the percentage of local channels is way out of proportion. Should it be out of proportion to the extent that only 6 out of 106 channels are reserved for local stations, which stations comprise roughly 25 to 30 percent of the total. This condition has existed since the promulgation of these rules and regulations some 12 years ago. During these years we have seen a drastic growth and change in its trends of radio. It is certainly time for a change. My contention is that one station should not be permitted to dominate and monopolize each of the 24 class I-A clear channels during nighttime hours. It is preposterous to suppose that one station can serve the whole of our country at night, and the best support of this claim is a listen any night in Washington, D. C., to a Texas, California, or Colorado clear-channel station. I, as one of many small-town radio-station owners, appreciate very much your efforts in behalf of preserving justice and public interest. It is indeed good to see one speak his objections in Senate to a plan whereby that plan would make a few richer and more powerful while making the rest poorer and less powerful. I thank you for your letter, and I wish you the best of luck on this undertaking. Yours very truly, MERL SAXON, Partner, KCLE, CLEBURNE, TEX, March 22, 1948. MR. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: It is my definite opinion that all AM radio stations should be limited to 50,000 watts and that provision should be made for duplication of all present clear channels. It is my belief that no superpowered station can serve an area far beyond its trade territory in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. As a small broadcaster only 28 miles from a metropolitan center, namely, Fort Worth, Tex.. I have found that I can give the people of my territory certain programs and types of information that cannot possibly be done by the powerful class I-A's in the Fort Worth-Dallas areas. Incidentally, each week I receive hundreds of cards and letters from persons in the Fort Worth-Dallas areas, and I find that these people show great interest in our programs designed for the rural audiences. At the present time, I am operating daytime, only on a I-A frequency, and I am not allowed to bring directly to my local audience such things as their own high-school football, basketball, and softball games which occur at night : these special events can only be brought to them via transcribed rebroadcast. In my estimation, not technically but speaking from a practical point of view, I-A stations should be duplicated so that other communities such as mine (Cleburne 1120 kc.) can be given local nighttime coverage. As a daytime broadcaster trying to serve my community, it is extremely difficult to change my hours with the sun each month and still serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Of course, this is necessary under the present rulings and I am required to do this so that my dominant station can supposedly cover a great portion of the United States and really only duplicate the CBS programs which can be heard locally from Dallas. Just a little guy (Marine veteran) trying to make an honest living and give a little pleasure and enjoyment to my community. Very truly yours, Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, GEORGE W. MARTI. HAMILTON BROADCASTING CO., INC., United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In regard to your letter concerning comment on the Johnson bill, S. 2231, which would provide for duplication of clear channels and limit power of such stations to 50,000 watts, I feel that this law should be passed. I am writing you in regard to this above-mentioned bill with very little information pertaining to the bill. From what I have read and also from your letter, I feel sure your bill should be advantageous to stations throughout the United States. I personally feel that small stations located in almost every community will serve a really fine service to each community and those stations should not be forced off the air by powerful stations on clear channels. Thanks for your letter, and I am very happy to inform you of my personal viewpoint. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Yours very truly, CLYDE WEATHERBY. KCRS, MIDLAND, TEX., March 24, 1948. Hon. CHARLES W. TOBEY, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: This station wishes to thank you and your committee for your fine interest in radio for the American people. We are dennitely in favor of the passage of bill No. S. 2231 written by Senator Edwin C. Johnson and presented to the Eightieth Congress in their second session In my opinion, the granting of clear-channel stations the power of 750,000 watts would jeopardize the position of the remaining stations in America and would lead to a just cry of discrimination and monopoly. We urge passage of the above bill to protect the masses. Please use this letter in any way that you see fit. Yours very truly, J. M. McDONALD, Manager. |