Изображения страниц


any amount of money that you want to buy them for. They work on a basis of being connected in with the Beil Telephone System. You may call to the station and when you call to the station all of the ships at sea in that particular area can pick your voice up and hear your message. Or, if someone on shore wants to call you, he can call you directly upon the boat on which you happen to be.

Now, the Coast Guard on these various excursion boats sets the limit as to the number of passengers that you can have in the boat. The Coast Guard requires that you should have life protectors and they require that you have running lights and they require that you have various sorts of auxiliary equipment. But there is nothing in the law with regard to these excursion boats or small fishing boats or small lobster boats that bring parties out that says that you must have a ship-to-shore device which I think is as much of a safety device as anything that the Coast Guard now requires.

This bill requires that in waters under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard we should have ship-to-shore installations.

As I understand it, there are about 7,000 excursion boats or fishing boats for hire or lobster boats for tourists to go out and see the lobstermen fish. It is interesting that most of them really are not in this business commercially. That is the man that we have to really fear: It is the man who works during the week and he has a small boat in which he is willing to take sightseers out on a weekend or Saturday and Sunday, and he may make a few extra dollars for himself in order to keep his boat afloat.

I think there is a terrific need for legislation of this type. Recently in Florida I was reading, down in Biscayne Bay there, that one of these excursion boats went out into the bay and there was a boat out fishing, and the crowd from the boat all ran over to the side to see the man catching the fish, and the entire boat tipped over. Well, fortunately, there were vessels around that had ship-to-shore radios there, and the Coast Guard was there within a matter of seconds.

I am just pointing that out to show you the dire need to have a protection matter of this type.

On the Pilgrim Belle, whose accident caused this legislation to be before you—and as I have already said, they had the ship-to-shore, but it was not in use, and I believe it was not in use because of the fact that they would have had to have another employee to run the ship-to-shore apparatus. Well, of course, in small excursion boats, we would not expect that you would have to have on a 1-man boat or a 2-man boat, extra help. Anybody in this day and age knows how to pick up the telephone and operate one of these ship-to-shore devices that they have on the modern ships. I really believe, gentlemen, that this is a necessary piece of legislation and certainly during the summer months. With the excursion season almost upon us, I think that this committee should act promptly on it.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neill.

I recall the presentation made, also, by your colleague, Mr. Macdonald, a member of this committee, some time ago. We are very glad to have you come and also point up to us, as he did, the importance of this proposed legislation.

Are there any questions?

Mr. HALE. Does this contemplate an additional man who does nothing except take care of this telephone?


Mr. O'NEILL. Well, it seems to me on those small ships that normally ply their trade down in the section of Maine where you come from, a small excursion craft of probably 35-foot length, that would hold possibly 40 passengers, a 1-man operation, no, it would not require another man. But surely, of the type of the vessel that runs like the Wilson Line, that would run between Boston and Providence, and would have as many as 1,000 or 1,500 or 2,000 passengers afloat, certainly just because they want to save an extra dollar on their wages, that would not be possible. They are cutting their expenses at the disadvantage of the public. The public would never realize this.

You take, for example, the people that ride that Wilson Line between Boston and Nantasket. I have seen those ships when literally there have been thousands of people upon them. Nobody ever dreamed, until an accident happened, that there is not a ship-to-shore telephone in use.

I believe that those major excursion lines like that, it should be written right into the law that they should absolutely have a man.

Mr. HALE. Have you a major excursion line from Boston to Providence?

Mr. O'NEILL. We have a line that runs out of Boston. It just runs during the summer. Now, it runs from Boston to Nantasket. They probably have 3 to 4 ships that run there in the course of a day. Then the same line runs to Provincetown, which is an all-day trip of about 100 miles. Then at night, these same vessels run around Boston Harbor on these moonlight dance cruises, and on a good moonlight dance cruise there is probably 2,500 people aboard.

The people were aghast when they found out that these vessels did not carry radiomen, and the radio equipment was there but it was not in use because of the fact, I suppose, that the union says, “You must have an extra man to run that ship-to-shore telephone.

Because of the fact they were making a paltry saving they did not have a man there. But certainly, I believe it is the moral obligation of the company to have a man there, and if they do not, I think it is an obligation of the Government to write into the law that ships of this type, ships that would hold a great amount of people like that, would be required to have a man on whenever that ship is out on an excursion, to attend to a ship-to-shore telephone.

Mr. HARRIS. Are there any questions?

Thank you very much Mr. O'Neill. We are very glad to have your statement.

Mr. Elisha Hanson.
Is Mr. Hanson here?



Mr. Harris. I believe you are here in behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association.

Mr. HANSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. We observed from the press that you are having quite a meeting in Washington at this time, too, so that I do not know of a more appropriate date for your appearance.

Mr. Hanson. That meeting is that being held here in Washington, Mr. Chairman, is that of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

That is quite a different organization from the American Newspaper Publishers Association in that it represents the editorial side of the business whereas the Publishers Association represents the business side as well as all other phases.

Mr. HARRIS. You do the financing so that the other organization can do the writing.

Mr. HANSON. Well, I would not say that. If they did not do darn good writing we would not do any financing. The very heart of the newspaper business comes through the news and editorial pages, and if they are not good the newspaper fails right off the bat.

My name is Elisha Hanson and my address is 729 15th Street NW., Washington 5, D. C.

I am appearing before you more or less as a pinch-hitter for Mr. Williams who had hoped to appear in behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association for the purpose of recommending the enactment of the amendment to the Communications Act as proposed in the two measures, H. R. 6968 and H. R. 6977.

The American Newspaper Publishers Association is a voluntary membership corporation organized and existing under the corporation laws of the State of New York. Its membership embraces the publishers of more than 800 daily and/or Sunday newspapers, the circulations of which range from less than 5,000 per day to more than 2 million per day.

The committee may be interested in knowing that approximately one-half of the members of the ANPA publish newspapers with circulations of less than 25,000 per day and about three-fourths publish newspapers with circulations of less than 50,000 per day.

In the early days of radio and television members of the ANPA pioneered both in the broadcasting and television fields. In fact, many went into the business when but relatively few others would make the venture. Their operations in the main have been notably successful from a business point of view. Even more important, they have been outstanding in service rendered in the public interest.

Most of the licenses heretofore granted by the Commission to newspaper applicants were granted in what are designated as uncontested proceedings. This simply means that there was no other applicant for the facilities sought by the newspaper applicant at the time of the original grant.

While the law presumably prohibits the Commission from discriminating against any applicant, otherwise qualified to hold a license, because of the business in which he is engaged, nevertheless for a decade and a half the Federal Communications Commission has been pursuing a policy of discriminating against applicants which are newspaper owned, in whole or in part, or with which persons associated with newspapers are to be found in the applicant group.

On this point, I want to make it perfectly clear that the Association I represent is not interested in the question as to whether a particular newspaper wants a radio or television station. Our interest is in opposition to the policy of the Commission in setting newspapers apart as a class for the purpose of favoring applicants not associated with newspapers over applicants which are so associated. We are opposed to any policy of any agency of Government designed to discriminate against newspapers because they are newspapers or to discriminate against any citizen because he happens to own or be associated with a newspaper, or to be engaged in any lawful business for which the Commission may not particularly care.

There is no rule or regulation of the Commission which can be cited in support of such a policy. There is no provision of law which can be cited in its support. But there is no doubt that it exists.

To illustrate: Back in 1948, the Commission found itself in such a mess over television it stayed all applications for construction permits for a period of approximately 4 years. It is still in a mess-granting permits for the construction of such stations in two different frequency areas designated VHF and UHF. Inasmuch as practically all chain television programs are distributed over VHF channels, UHF presents both economic and operating problems that are almost insoluble. Licenses of more than 35 UHF stations have been voluntarily surrendered since granted, but, I am informed, none by a newspaper owned licensee.

When the present Chairman of the Commission appeared before you he urged you to reject the proposed amendment. He said it was unnecessary because the Commission does not have any authority to promulgate any rule discriminating against newspapers or to arbitrarily deny an application because of newspaper interest therein.

I agree it has no such authority under the present act.

But the record of the Commission shows that through a series of decisions in contested cases, especially since the thawing of the 1948 freeze in 1952, it has followed a policy of discriminating against applicants owned by or associated with newspapers,

The Commission, up to January 31, 1956, had entered final orders in 12 contested cases in which 1 or more applicants had newspaper associations.

In 10 of these it invoked its so-called diversification policy-I prefer to call it its discrimination policy-to tip the scales against the newspaper applicants.

In one particular case, its trial examiner found the newspaper applicant superior in all areas of comparison contested before him. He further found that the newspaper applicant had a record of more than 30 years of outstanding public service in the broadcast field and still further that there was no danger of monopoly if a grant were made to the newspaper.

The applications as originally filed in that case demonstrated that, in one comparative area, the newspaper application was vastly superior to that of its opponent in respect to site location, terms of coverage, signal strength and quality of service. During the hearing the applicant proposing the inferior service petitioned to amend its application in these particulars so as to bring it up to the other. This petition was granted over the objection of the newspaper applicant, with the result that there remained no factor for preference in that

Notwithstanding this amendment, the trial examiner recommended a grant to the newspaper applicant and the Commission overruled him and made the grant to the nonnewspaper applicant solely on the base of its policy of preferring an applicant not associated with a newspaper to one that was.

After the grant had been made, the Commission again demonstrated its attitude of discrimination.


[ocr errors]

The successful nonnewspaper applicant petitioned the Commission to amend its construction permit so as to relieve it from complying with the high standards in respect of site location, terms of coverage, signal strength and quality of service it had been forced to meet through amendment of its original application for the permit in order to avoid a preference for the newspaper applicant in that comparative area.

The Commission granted this petition for reduced service without notice or hearing. When the unsuccessful newspaper applicant sought to be heard thereon, it was arbitrarily informed it had no proper interest in the matter.

All of which brings me to this point. I suggest that the measure before you be amended by inserting in line 7, after the word "procedure," the words “or any policy."

The paragraph as so amended would read:

The Commission shall not make or promulgate any rule or regulation, of substance or procedure, or any policy, the purpose or result of which is to effect a discrimination between persons based upon interest in, association with, or ownership of any medium primarily engaged in the gathering and dissemination of information and no application for a construction permit or station license, or ifor the renewal, modification, or transfer of such a permit or license, shall be denied by the Commission solely because of any such interest, association, or ownership.

Without such an amendment I am afraid your intentions can be defeated in the future, just as the law has been evaded, and the commitments by the Commission to observe the law have been broken, in the past.

Now, what is the policy of discrimination? The Commission's own decisions define it.

In the recent McClatchy case which I have just referred to, the Commission said:

Finally, we come to the contention which we consider to be determinative in this proceeding-diversification of control of the media of mass communication. While recognizing that the Commission has in the past preferred nonnewspaper :applicants over newspaper applicants and newcomers to the field over existing licensees, it is the examiner's view that where monopoly or the threat of monopoly does not exist, such precedents lose force. Further, the examiner found that the multiplicity of other mass communication media in the area and the presence of 1 other daily newspaper, 4 other AM stations and 2 other FM stations in Sacramento, assures that McClatchy's viewing and listening audience would not be solely dependent upon it as a source of public information. From these circumstances, the examiner concluded that McClatchy, licensee of multiple radio facilities and the owner of large newspaper interests, should prevail over an applicant composed, in the majority, of public-spirited businessmen, who, entering the broadcast field for the first time, propose an entirely unobjectionable operation. We cannot agree with the examiner's conclusion.

But where one applicant is free of association with existing media of communication, and the other is not, the Commission, in the interest of competition and consequent diversity, which as we have seen is a part of the public interest, may let its judgment be influenced favorably toward the applicant whose situation promises to promote diversity. Our decisions have shown that the Commission ordinarily will incline toward an applicant not associated with the local channels of communication of fact and opinion over an applicant having such : association.

In a three-way contested controversy before the Commission involving the Enterprise Co., the Beaumont Broadcasting Corp., and station KTRM-Tỹ, the Commission said:

* * * Aside from questions of overlap, the preference due Beaumont Broadcasting over KTRM in this matter of diversification and concentration of mass

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »