Page images
PDF
EPUB

In summary, both testimony delivered before the subcommittee and evidence submitted for inclusion in the record show small broadcasters to be vitally concerned with their communities from professional and personal standpoints alike, revealing a concern and a commitment which is important to the small towns and cities in which they operate.

III. THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL PAPERWORK AS REVEALED BY THE HEARINGS

During the course of the hearings, three major areas of concern to small broadcasters became apparent to the subcommittee. Two were concerned with Federal Communications Commission licensing policies, and a third involved a proposed F.C.C. ruling substantially increasing the public information file obligations.

There was almost universal agreement among the small broadcasters testifying that the costs involved with applying for renewal of their F.C.C. broadcasting licenses constituted a financial burden due to the amount of paperwork involved in preparing the renewal applications. The rapid increase in the complexity of the forms and the time and expense consumed in their preparation were pointed out by Mr. Ray Johnson of Medford, Oregon, in his testimony:

I remember, so well, my first experience in completing a renewal form. The year was 1948. It took about four hours of my time to extract the necessary information, compute the program and commercial percentages and then fill in the necessary blanks.

If my memory serves me correctly, there were no more than four single sheet attachments. The completed renewal form demonstrated accurately and sufficiently to the Commission, that the station was, in fact, operating in the best interests of the community and the license was renewed. Our last application for license renewal weighed thirty pounds-the postage to Washington was $24.03-and our program department estimated that twenty people devoted over four hundred manhours over a period of six months, to prepare for, research, compute, and then complete the renewal applications.

[blocks in formation]

the duplicating alone of the necessary documents in adequate
copies cost our company $116.52. Our legal fees associated
with F.C.C. filings were $13,167.68 for 1970, $14,934.47 for
1971, and $7,816.93 for 1972.11

The complexity of license renewal applications was also pointed out by Mr. David I. Hansen (Ely, Nevada) in a letter submitted for inclusion in the hearings record:

The F.C.C. requirements are phrased in such a way that interpretation of the rules and regulations requires specialized legal training, and even then we cannot receive definite answers to our questions from such professionally trained specialists as the Legal Department of the National Assocition of Broadcasters.12

11 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 932. 12 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 899.

The hearings revealed that small broadcasters consider the F.C.C.'s Community Ascertainment Program to be one of the most onerous parts of the renewal application. This procedure involves face to face interviews by station management personnel with a broad variety of the public in their market areas. In addition to man in the street interviews, they are also required to conduct individual sessions with local public figures, such as elected officials, clergy, educators, prominent members of minority groups and the like; the results are then tabulated and analyzed. The purpose of the program is to create an awareness among the licensee holders of the programming needs of their various communities.13 It also provides a vehicle whereby community spokesmen can inform the broadcasters of their views as to whether the station is serving the entire community and point out areas of programming which in the stations are not active as well as general comments and observations on the station's programming, To the small broadcaster, the program is a tremendous additional burden on his precious time. Most of the small license holders pointed out the discrepancy between the manpower they had available to service this program and the amount of time required of them to complete the task. Mr. Johnson testified that his own station, in Medford, Oregon, had conducted four hundred interviews prior to their most recent renewal. One license holder, Mr. Cy Newman of Henderson, Nevada, spent over 30 days interviewing members of the community in order to meet F.C.C. qualifications. His attitude towards the program typifies that of the small broadcasters who made their opinions known to the subcommittee, either through testimony or through statements submitted:

As to the interviewees' ideas of how well we are servicing the community.... at least one half of the people interviewed have never listened to our station, possibly 25% of those who do listen, only listen occasionally. How can these people evaluate the job we are doing in this community? 15

One must keep in mind while evaluating and understanding the expressed concern of the small broadcasters, as it relates to the Community Ascertainment Program, that the airways on which they operate and profit belong to the public. The broadcasters are mere license holders who in the use of the public airways are called upon to bring forth proof, in the form of the Community Ascertainment Program, that they are in fact serving the public to whom the airways belong. The committee is extremely sympathetic to problems of the small broadcasters and is quite concerned with any unnecessary reporting requirements or abuses that may occur in implementing the Community Ascertainment Program, but at the same time appreciates the overall purpose of the program and the benefit derived in contacting, by individual sessions, local public figures and community spokesmen.

Other small broadcasters indicated concern over the apparent unwillingness of the F.C.C. to allow any exceptions in the community ascertainment rule. The Commission rejected a plan formulated by KATU-TV in Portland, Oregon, which would have permitted a

[blocks in formation]

random selection of groups of community leaders to be interviewed in groups and by a number of broadcasters in fulfillment of the ascertainment requirements. The F.C.C. maintained that, as part of a group, the interviewees might feel more inhibited in their comments than if they were consulted singly by the broadcasters.16

The committee recommends that the F.C.C. consider allowing small broadcasters to interview selected groups of community leaders as a part of the Community Ascertainment Program requirements providing those community leaders agree in writing to the group session and adequate time is set aside for each community spokesman to air his views.

The third major cause of concern among small broadcasters at the time of the hearings was the F.C.C.'s proposed regulation regarding licensees' public information files. The proposed regulation would require a station to maintain in its public files all program logs for a period of three years and ninety days. The file would be made available for scrutiny in some place readily accessible to the public, such as a library or municipal center.17

One witness testified that such an addition to his present file was uncalled for, his file consisting at that time of extensive materials, including construction permits, license renewal forms with their proper attachments, copies of ownership reports and network affiliation contracts, management contracts, and requests for political broadcasting and other various materials. He considered the proposed public information log unnecessary, judging by his experience with existing public information file requirements:

Our local file is approximately eight inches in depth, and to date no one has asked to view the file or any part of it. We believe the local file serves no real purpose.18

Aside from the argument that the new requirements were unnecessary, other points against it were raised. Mr. Grover C. Cobb, Executive Vice President for Government Relations for the National Association of Broadcasters, stated that the expanded public information file would present competing broadcasters with unrestricted access to important management information, and that the necessity of maintaining the log on a chronological basis would require substantial changes in the automatic computerized logging, the use of which is now spreading in the industry. 19

The sheer volume of paperwork involved in establishment of the station log as a public information requirement was criticized by broadcasters. The logs average 20 to 30 pages, and in fact, Mr. Ray Johnson of Radio Medford, Inc. stated that his log ran 34 pages daily.20 A subcommittee staff member estimated that an average log, rendered in triplicate for the prescribed period, would include from 71,000 to 106,000 pages, depending on its length, with a total duplication cost running into thousands of dollars over a three-year period.21 The proposed regulation, formulated so as to give community groups the ability to monitor broadcasters closely, was regarded as an unnecessary addition to their expenses by witnesses, involving a

16 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, pp. 1317-1318.

17 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 1354.

18 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 934.

19 FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, pp. 943-944.

20 FPB Hearings, Op cit., Part 3, p. 940.

FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 1039.

dangerously large increase in their paperwork burden. Even Chairman Burch admitted in his testimony that the proposal would be of little value in most cases:

Admittedly, Senator, 8,000 stations would be required to keep this. That is the trouble with this business. And maybe thirty of those files would really get worked over in a year, but I don't know which thirty they are and I have no way of knowing, and I don't think there is any way anybody else can know.22

Several witnesses urged extension of the F.C.C. licensing period from three years to five years. They explained that this action would provide substantial relief from the license application burden simply by making it one which they would bear less often. They advanced several arguments in favor of extension: one was the longtime practice of granting five-year licenses to industrial and aeronautical radio operators. Another, mentioned by Mrs. Levine in her testimony and by Mr. Hansen in his letter, was the effect of the short renewal term. Both maintained that the threat every three years of losing the F.C.C. license was a disincentive to necessary investment, especially in the case of the small broadcaster who operated at a deficit more often than his larger counterpart. Significantly, Chairman Burch offered no objection to this proposal:

The Commission itself is sympathetic to a longer licensee period. For one thing, it would help our business considerably because we have 8,000 licenses to renew in a 3-year period. If that were extended to 5 years, as an example, it would give us 40 percent more time to devote to the same thing.25

IV. THE RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Chairman Dean Burch testified at length before the subcommittee, presenting the case of the Federal Communications Commission. In addition to his spoken remarks and written statement, he also included extensive documentary materials for insertion into the record. He emphasized the F.C.C.'s awareness of the problems confronting all broadcasters, large and small, due to the increasing burden of Federal paperwork. He indicated a willingness on the agency's part to consider actions designed to reduce the requirements as far as possible without impinging upon the Commission's mandated function of monitoring and regulation.

He described in some detail the F.C.C.'s re-regulation program, a major effort at streamlining the mass of communications related regulations that have grown up in the past decades. In April of 1972, the F.C.C. invited broadcasters, concerned organizations and individuals to submit suggestions for the reduction of unnecessary and redundant regulatory requirements. By the time the hearings were held in February of 1973, more than six hundred replies had been received.26

FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 1038.

FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 959.
FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, pp. 892, 899.

FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 965.

FPB Hearings, Op. cit., Part 3, p. 962.

The first re-regulation order was promulgated on November 2, 1972. Chairman Burch noted the words of the order:

Many of the rules are a carry-over from the early days of radio and television. Technological advancements have produced more sophisticated and reliable equipment. Programming and management experience has led to increased maturity in operation. Thus, the Commission has determined that certain rules are no longer required in their present form and should be relaxed or deleted without further delay.27

Chairman Burch explained that the changes concerned technical matters such as fewer meter readings and inspections of transmitting equipment, as well as permitting the combination of operating and maintenance logs under certain conditions, provisions for allowing greater flexibility in timing of station identification announcements and reducing the total number required.28

A second re-regulation order, released on December 20, 1972, provided for the elimination or revision of 69 rules in 15 different subject areas. The order involved such practices as station reporting, recordkeeping and operating requirements. 29 In his written statement, Chairman Burch outlined further topics to be reviewed for future inclusion in the re-regulation process:

a. different forms for radio and TV;

b. different reporting procedures for stations in different
size markets;

c. a short form for radio renewals;

d. combining certain forms to perform dual functions;
e. modification of form content for clarity and ease of
understanding.

In the near future the Commission expects to initiate a
formal proceeding in which these and other ideas will be
explored by soliciting comments from the industry and all
interested parties.

*

Mr. Chairman, I emphasize again that this project, while it may be overdue, is well underway and will continue. The Commission, motivated as you are by a genuine concern for the public and the small businessman, appreciates your interest. . . .

30

The committee recommends the F.C.C. ascertain whether there are unique problems faced by small stations in large markets, a category not covered with any definitiveness in the hearings and not included in the above list. The committee is particularly concerned with the so-called "special market" small broadcasters within large markets such as ethnic and foreign language stations, all news stations, all classical music stations, and the like.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »