in another radio station, I think he was allowed to do it providing the frequencies were Mr. HENRY. Well, the only economic test that we had was that he be financially responsible. Senator MONRONEY. Yes. Will that be the test on the additional UHF stations? Will some existing station be able to plead that one more television outlet in the community would be detrimental to the economics of the industry? PLEAS OF INJURY BY MARGINAL OPERATORS Mr. HENRY. No. I think the test is the same but by the same token, a marginal operator could conceivably plead economic injury which would result in reduction of public service programing in the same way that a radio station now can. Mr. Cox. In the only case I know of in television it was pleaded by a VHF operator that the inception of two new services in the same general area would cause economic injury in areas open to the public. Mr. HENRY. I frankly do not think this is going to be a big problem, and I do not think it is going to be of detriment to the development of additional UHF channels. Senator MAGNUSON. Now, you mentioned here on page 6, and we will have to it is understood-I am sure you people in the Commission understand we are having you in here early, and then we expect to come back if and when the House passes the bill, and we can talk about Senator ALLOTT. Don't say "if.” Senator MAGNUSON. Timewise I am talking about. OVERALL PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP OF BROADCAST FACILITIES Senator MAGNUSON. You will come back. And then we will go into some of these other matters. But you do mention-I think it will save our time and your time to have this preliminary—you will be examining multiple ownership rules to determine whether they are sufficient in increase the extent of multiple ownership, particularly in the VHF. Do you have any study or is the Commission giving any consideration to multiple ownership in a market area of TV and newspapers to the extent that it might be considered a monopolistic control? Mr. HENRY. Well, what we have underway that is new is a staff study on the instructions of the Commission to consider the overall problem of the multiple ownership of broadcast facilities. Senator MAGNUSON. Not other means of communication. OWNERSHIP OF COMMUNITY'S ANTENNA SYSTEM Mr. HENRY. Well, we have another inquiry into the ownership of a community's antenna system which is in fact related but which is being conducted separately. It would question, for example, the effect on the multiple ownership of broadcast stations of ownership of CATV facilities by broadcast licenses. Senator MAGNUSON. But I am talking about-do you have any plans on an inquiry to go further in a community where the ownership extends to all means of communications? Mr. LOEVINGER. I have taken a position, Senator, that this is highly relevant to the Commission's mission and functions under the Communications Act. By and large the Commission has not felt that it should inquire deeply into the extent of newspaper ownership. I think the ownership of all media of mass communication is equally relevant to the consideration of whether a license should be granted, but that view has not been PROBLEM OF POSSIBLE MONOPOLY PRACTICE Senator MAGNUSON. We long established down at the Commission that the fact that a person owned a newspaper was not any bar to them owning a TV station. Mr. HENRY. No, sir, but it is Senator MAGNUSON. But if it turns out to be a monopoly, then you have a problem the Commission must consider. Mr. HENRY. Well, I think the correct way to express it is that the present Commission policy is that ownership of other means of communication of any kind, mass media, is relevant, no question about that. But it is not in and of itself now a bar, and I do not think there is any study now underway aimed at making it an absolute bar. Senator MAGNUSON. Oh, no. No. I do not think it should be a bar unless it tends to monopolize a given market area or communications. Then it becomes a matter of consideration. I do not know that there are such places. TIMES-PICAYUNE SUIT Now, there was a suit started in New Orleans. What happened to that? Mr. LOEVINGER. The newspaper case Mr. HENRY. Times-Picayune. Mr. LOEVINGER. Just after the Supreme Court decided there was no danger of monopoly and threw the case out, the second newspaper folded, and there is only one newspaper left. Senator MAGNUSON. That was a happy ending for the whole newspaper. We will pursue that later, but I want it clear that no one is suggesting and I do not represent that newspapers should be barred from owning stations. Mr. MACK. It has been suggested. There was a rule-making one time when FM was introduced, when a study was made, and the licensing of applications connected with newspapers was suspended for some time. It was finally closed, and the Commission determined to go on a case-by-case basis. PERSONNEL SITUATION, 1963-65 Senator MAGNUSON. I just have one question, and I will yield to the Senator from Colorado. According to our figures, in 1963 you had 1,544 permanent positions; in 1964, 1,570; and 1965, you are asking for 1,609. Are those figures correct? If they are not, we would like to have the correct figures. Mr. HENRY. We are asking for an increase generally of 39. Senator MAGNUSON. And when you come back here, will you figure out how you could dispense with those 39 ? Mr. HENRY. Well, how we can eliminate them? SECTION 315 "EQUAL TIME" COMPLAINTS Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, you were talking about this paragraph on page 6. I would just like to ask one question, and I appreciate the courtesy from the Senator from Colorado. In the last sentence of that paragraph, Mr. Henry, you say: Finally in the first 4 months of 1965, I hardly need remind this committee we shall be in an election year, and inevitably we shall have a peak of section 315 complaints to resolve equitably with the least delay. Now, that is the section which says If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunity to all such candidates for that office for the use of such broadcasting station. Now, as I understand it, we have not changed that law at all. That law is in effect today, is it not? Mr. HENRY. That is correct. Senator SALTONSTALL. So that it is your responsibility to interpret that law? Mr. HENRY. Yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. And do you intend to interpret it with any exceptions or are you going to interpret it that you would say a Socialist or Communist candidate shall have an equal opportunity with a Democrat or Republican? Mr. HENRY. Yes. So long as he is legally qualified within the jurisdiction in which he is running, then the section applies to him. Senator SALTONSTALL. And Congress will have to pass a law to change that. Mr. HENRY. Yes, sir. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you. Senator MAGNUSON. All right. Let me ask a question off the record. EDITORIALIZING BY GROUPS Senator ALLOTT. What I object to in this field is not the editorializing but the numerous programs, and I will get a list of them if you want them, that government or the sponsorship of one organization or another under the guise of being newscasts and which are day after day, if you examine them and listen to them, nothing but editorialization by a particular group, and I think this constitutes a real basic threat to freedom of speech. People think they are getting a legitimate newscast, and they are not getting it. Now, Mr. Chairman, I had some matters I wanted to take up with Mr. Henry, and it covered some correspondence I have had with him, and he is aware of it. I wonder if I could not have an answer to that letter and your feelings on that, and then perhaps at the next session we would be able to speed it up a little bit without the long interchange of questions and answers that might otherwise be necessary. I think some of these problems, particularly the one about the reporting on public programs, public interest programs, that is required, and some of the questions raised in Mr. Armstrong's comments which he placed before you in docket 13961 I think are very pertinent, and I really would like to have your comments on those. Maybe this will save time later. Mr. HENRY. We will be glad to give you a letter on that. Senator MAGNUSON. All right; thank you, gentlemen. We have to recess now. We would like to go on all morning, but we will come back, and I would suggest for the information of the Commission that it would probably be the middle or after the middle of May because we have got all the other agencies we are going to have to get to in the meantime, and we hope by that time we will have some word from the House. Off the record. Senator Robertson has left some questions concerning the AM "freeze" and the present FM situation. I will insert them, together with your answers, at this point in the record. (The material referred to follows:) Mr. EARL W. COOPER, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Clerk, Independent Offices Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. SENATE, April 22, 1964. DEAR MR. COOPER: I was unable to attend the hearing of the Independent Offices Subcommittee but I wish you would get answers for the committee record from Chairman Henry of the Federal Communications Commission to the following questions concerning the imposition by the FCC on May 10, 1962, of a general "freeze" on applications for new standard broadcast radio stations and for changes in the facilities of existing radio stations: How has this freeze affected the workload of the Commission? Assuming that a freeze would reduce the number of applications to be considered, has it been possible to reduce staff positions? If so, have any savings been possible? What is the situation as to workload, staff positions, and possible savings insofar as applications for FM radio facilities are concerned? With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, A. WILLIS ROBERTSON. RESPONSE TO SENATOR A. WILLIS ROBERTSON'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON THE AM FREEZE RELATIVE TO WORKLOAD AND MANPOWER AND THE PRESENT SITUATION REGARDING FM Question No. 1. How has the AM freeze affected the workload of the Commission? Answer. Since the AM freeze of May 10, 1962, the backlog of pending applications requesting new AM stations and major changes in existing stations has been reduced from 874 to 400. During this period the number of applications in hearing status has also been reduced from 217 to 146. Question No. 2. Assuming that a freeze would reduce the number of applications to be considered, has it been possible to reduce staff positions? Answer. Since May 10, 1962, the staff has been engaged in reducing the considerable backlog which existed at that time with no resulting reduction in staff positions. There is still a sizable backlog to be reduced, and it is not expected that the present staff would be reduced until a greater reduction in the backlog has been achieved. Since it is expected that the AM freeze will be lifted soon, probably by June of 1964, it is not expected that a reduction in manpower devoted to AM processing will be realized during fiscal year 1965. Question No. 3. If so, have any savings been possible? Answer. No staff reduction savings have been possible due to the large backlog which existed at the time the freeze was instituted: However, a considerable inroad has been made in reducing the backlog. Question No. 4. What is the situation as to workload, staff positions, and possible savings insofar as applications for FM radio facilities are concerned? Answer. There has been considerable activity in FM since the table of assignments was adopted on July 25, 1963. Since the table of assignments was adopted 487 applications from new stations and major changes in existing stations have been filed. As of March 31, 1964, there were 319 applications pending, and it is expected that this backlog will be decreasing at a steady rate since the amount of processing time necessary has been reduced considerably with the adoption of a table of assignments. At the present time there is considerable activity concerning petitions for changes in the table of assignments. However, this situation should level off in the coming fiscal year. Since the FM table of assignments does result in a reduction in required processing time, the net savings of this table should be that no increase in processing staff will be required. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. HENRY. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1964, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, April 23, 1964.) |