Page images
PDF
EPUB

RECOI

nse of WHDH-TV, it has apparently been decided that a broad-
be applying for renewal should have no advantage over rival
pite its record of performance in the public interest.
i upset long-standing Commission policy under which the Com-
ill credit to a renewal applicant for its past programming record,
proven record of performance to prevail over mere promises.
lently clear that the WHDH Case was intended-and is regarded
s of S. 2004as à vehicle for a drastic restructuring of the broad-
y through the license renewal process. CBS is profoundly con-
lecision of such magnitude can be arrived at in so summary a
trast this action with the tortuous progress through Commission

lic rule-making proceedings on such mundane matters as station SURF Adirectional antennas. Matters of this kind require years before

losed and rules amended, but in the WHDH Case restructure of

industry was undertaken by three Commissioners-a minority ! the

a single afternoon. Under existing law the Commission can gain aur its criteria for renewal cases at any time, according to its preilections of the moment. This shifting of Commission attitudes and resulting 2stability can only be ultimately a disservice to the public.

S. 2004 would remedy this. The bill requires the Commission to address the key question in considering broadcast renewal applications: Are the record and "epresentations of the eristing licensee of such a nature that the Commission can ind that the "publio interest, convenience and necessity' would be served by renewing the station's license? If so, this bill calls upon the Commission to renew the license without subjecting a licensee who is performing satisfactorily under Commission standards to competing applications. If, on the other hand, the Commission concludes that the licensee has not met his public service responsibilities, has not lived up to his representations, then S. 2004 requires the Commission to deny the renewal application and accept applications for construction permits from others on a competitive basis.

Those who oppose S. 2004 argue that this bill represents au attempt to perpetuate existing licenses. This is wrong in point of fact and, I am confident, was never the intent of the sponsor of the bill. In the opinion of the CBS Law Department, and in the opinion of outside counsel as well, there is no reasonable basis, in law or in common sense, for the argument that this bill would confer a license in perpetuity on any broadcaster. On the contrary, as a practical matter, the effect of the legislation contemplated by the bill would probably be to intensify the scrutiny that licensees must undergo at license renewal time. And that is all to the good. But certainly based upon the plain language of this bill read together with the remainder of the Communications Act, any licensee who failed to live up to his representations, who failed to operate his facilities in the public interest, would be subject to loss of license.

We would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman, in order to make clear beyond any question or peradventure of doubt that the impact of S. 2004 is not to insulate licensees from FCC scrutiny or sanction, that the proposed statutory language be amended as follows [to place the revision in context I set forth Section 309(a) of the Communications Act as it would read in its entirety]:

8 309(a). Subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall determine, in the case of each application filed with it to which Section 308 applies, whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting of such application, and, if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consideration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and, necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application. The Commission, in acting upon any application for renewal of a broadcast license filed under Section 308, may not consider the application of any other person for the facilities for which renewal is sought, but nothing in this sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcast renewal applicants from the affirmative burden imposed on them under this chapter to satisfy the Commission that a grant of renewal of license would serve the public interest. If the Commission determines after a hearing that a grant of the application of a renewal applicant would not be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, it shall deny such application, and applications for construction permits by other parties may then be accepted, pursuant to Section 308, for the broadcast service previously licensed to the renewal applicant whose renewal was denied.

[graphic]

309(a) of the Act; this sentence would be unchanged rants, des

In the above revision the first sentence is unchangeag license sentence (emphasis supplied] is a revision of S. 2004 de's decisioi tinuing affirmative burden on a renewal applicant to satyn gave ft he will operate in the public interest. The third andnabling a

change from S. 2004. the Subcommittee of Chairman Dean Burch and Comg industri

We would take note also of the already released sta opponent each of which thoughtfully considers the objections that a somewhat different alternate recommendation. CBS won. We con man Burch's or Commissioner Lee's proposal.

We feel strongly that S. 2004 as introduced has grification an to date have included notable specimens of the sits can be c the public interest, misrepresented though it has beenrmance of obscure the merits and importance of this legislation. FCC-on slogans so popular today. It would be regrettable indtoadcasting

We this
ings of the Subcommittee on S. 2004,
With all good wishes.
Sincerely,

FRANK STAN

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AT AN

CONVENTION IN MEMPHIS Whereas, Senator Pastore has introduced in the United States Senate a to provide that the Federal Communications Commission may not consider om applications when a station license is before the Commission for renewal un it is first determined that the license of the current holder will not be renewet and,

Whereas, it appears that such guidelines as provided by the bill would be desirable and that the proposed legislation should be enacted: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Tennessee Association of Broadcasters, duly assembled in annual convention at Memphis on this 3rd day of October, 1969, does hereby urge enactment of the Pastore Bill, Senate Bill 2004; be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to Senator Pastore, to ench member of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, and to the Federal Communications Commission.

[Telegram]

SAUGERTIES, N.Y., December 5, 1969. Senator JOHN O. PASTORE, l'.$. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

As Past President and currently honorary President of the eleven million member General Federation of Womens Club, as former radio producer and as author of a textbook on speech, I have a special interest in the role communications media play in serving community needs. Applaud your continuing concern and the recognition that stability of broadcast stations, important as it is, does not justify excluding citizen participation in the license renewal procedure. S. 2004 clearly gives the layman, such as myself, the best chance to express opinion and criticism of a broadcast stations performance in a meaningful manner. With the weight given the comments in renewal proceedings under your bill, stations and the FCC will be more responsive than ever before to the listeners and viewers of America. I wholeheartedly endorse the objectives of S. 2004 and urge the Congress to adopt this much needed legislation. Sincerely,

MARGARET L. ARNOLD.
Mrs. Dexter Otis Arnold.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

TO AMEND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WITH RE-
SPECT TO RECOVERY OF A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE
IN CASE OF SUCCESSFUL MAINTENANCE OF AN ACTION
FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED IN TRANSPOR-

TATION OF PROPERTY

1

JUNE 10, 1969

Serial No. 91-19

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

US, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1969

32-524

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island

NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York
JOSEPH D, TYDINGS, Maryland
WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR., Virginia

FREDERICK J. LORDAN, Staff Director
MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, General Counsel

STANLEY H. BARER, Transportation Counsel
A. DANIEL O'NEAL, Surface Transportation Counsel
ARTHUR PANKOPF, Jr., Minority Staff Director

J. PAUL MOLLOY, Minority Staff Counsel

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana, Chairman HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland

CONTENTS

Page

1

1

23

25

34

69

« PreviousContinue »