صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

on funds from other sources, with the Federal contribution merely being an assist. That should not be forgotten either.

The public television people, to the extent they need more money, should be as concerned with raising their money from other sources in their communities as they are with getting more and more money from the Federal Government.

Senator STEVENS. I think the public system ought to be more interested in getting television in the areas where there is no television rather than putting on a fifth station in an area such as Washington.

It seems to me the obligation is to take the television experience out where it is not to begin with, and then to provide the programing and competition if they can afford to do it.

Let me ask you one more question-I have taken all my time Senator PASTORE. The Senator can use all the time he wants. Senator STEVENS. I wanted to ask a question about the domestic satellites. I assume that is within the scope of this hearing. Senator PASTORE. It is.

Senator STEVENS. I have noted the FCC has required that Alaska and Hawaii be included in the rate structure by any company wishing to put up a satellite under the domestic program.

As I understand, that is an integrated rate structure. I would like to ask you whether there is any impediment to the companies that provide service to Alaska and Hawaii of giving us an integrated rate structure now.

As I understand, they are willing to do it when we get satellite communications. Why can't they do it now?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. As I understand it, they can. As I further understand it, the FCC has directed the Bell System to look at this question and to recommend new integrated tariffs. The rationale is, of course, that with the advent of satellites for domestic communications, a separate tariff for Hawaii and Alaska would no longer be justified. We certainly support that, and I think the Commission, the telephone industry, and the common carriers, should move as promptly as possible to reflect that integrated rate structure and not wait for the satellites to actually get up there.

Senator STEVENS. I am pleased to hear that. We demonstrated right here in the Congress, the Senators and Congressmen from Hawaii and offshore areas and Alaska do not have the same communications between that those in what we call the south 48 do.

You can call anywhere in the United States supposedly for one fee after a certain time of night, but then if you look at the asterisk it says except for Hawaii and Alaska and the offshore areas. Either we will be one country as we are in the postage stamp system with the Postal Service, or we will have to find some way to give the offshore areas some assistance so that they can, in fact, be the equivalent of all the rest of the American States.

This is the one major impediment to taking television, national television into my State on a direct basis as the awareness of the integrated rate structure. I would welcome your assistance in that matter.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I agree wholeheartedly and we will certainly do whatever we can.

Senator STEVENS. Going back to the public affairs program areaand I do not want to extend that out more than we should, but what do

you see for the future of the public broadcasting system as far as its relationship to the networks?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I think the concept of public television, as an alternative to commercial television, is a sound one.

To be sure, commercial television in this country has its problems, but nonetheless, I think it is widely conceded that we have probably the best television of any country in the world.

Commercial television provides a great service and we should continue to rely on private enterprise broadcasting as our primary broadcasting system. Now, for a variety of reasons recognized by the Congress and by the FCC, there are certain types of programing that cannot command advertiser support, especially with the limited number of channels.

Such programs, however, should be available to the American television viewing public. Things like education, culture, and the arts are very important subjects. I think Sesame Street has shown how we can have interesting, vital, gripping television for children-television that is educational at the same time that it is entertaining. We ought to be exploring more of that type of thing.

Senator STEVENS. Does the administration have any way to decrease support for public broadcasting?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. No: we do not intend that at all. We have steadily increased the funding for public broadcasting. The funds distributed through the HEW educational broadcasting facilities program, which provides money for construction of new broadcast facilities, cameras, tape recorders and the like, have been increased. In fact, in the President's budget, although many things were cut in the HEW budget, that item was not cut. That was held at $13 million.

Senator STEVENS. With the chairman's permission. I would like to place in the record at this point a request for appropriations over the years since the public broadcasting system has come in.

Senator PASTORE. We have it right here.

Senator STEVENS. All right.

Senator PASTORE. We will put it in the record without objection. (The document referred to follows:)

[blocks in formation]

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Now, you say the reason for the 1974 request reducing it to $35 million was a recognition of the situation that we are ending the balance of year at a current level.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is right.

Senator STEVENS. Yet we will start up in July at the $45 million level.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. In other words, you could not spend $10 million, say, if we did get a bill out of here by April or first of May in the 212 months available. It would be unwise to spend $10 million and cut back down to a $45 million dollar level, is that correct? Dr. WHITEHEAD. That is basically right. The funds would carry into the next fiscal year, but the practical effect would be that for the fiscal year 1974, the Corporation would have funding of $55 million, and we just thought that it was not wise to have the growth going at that rate.

Senator PASTORE. For the life of me, I cannot see why you keep resisting the 2-year authorization. The appropriation could still be done on a yearly basis. It is only the fortification that the Corporation needs on this long lead time that is necessary.

We would all be better off for it. Admitting the fact there are faults that have to be cured but like everything else, this is a new venture so to speak. And it has to go through a trial period. There is no question about that.

But you cannot suffocate it with less money by cutting down the authorization period. I do not see why this administration is so much opposed to it when the testimony before this committee both Republican and Democrat members of the Corporation have been that a two year authorization is necessary.

They have justified that in the record. We are not talking about appropriation; we are talking about authorization. I hope the President next time will sign a 2-year authorization bill. We have passed the bill and he has vetoed it. That is the reason for it. I am not saying that he may be alone on that. The fact remains he did veto the authorization for 2 years.

He did it on your recommendation, so I am pleading to you today that you give it a good look and talk with the members of that Corporation. Because I think that is where your fault lies. If we are going to expect them to do a good job, they need a little more time. And you understand these things. It ought to be done.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the concept that there ought to be longer range funding. But I think there is more involved here than just the planning horizons of the Corporation. Senator PASTORE. I know what it was, Sandy Vanocur and so on. I know what started all this. It is politics.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. We think there are

Senator PASTORE. Politics, that is what it was.

Dr. WHITEHEAD. We think there are important issues the Congress ought to address in this area, and until this is done we think annual authorization would be a healthy matter.

Senator STEVENS. I would call your attention to the fact that we have an opportunity to put a 2-year authorization in and take it out of the political year. I would like to support increased funding for the public broadcasting on a 2-year basis and take it out of that election year complex.

I would urge the administration to take a look at it from that point of view. If the authorization would expire in a nonelection year, we

would have a lot more sanity about the way we face the problems of public broadcasting. I would urge you to take another look at the matter to see if we could not increase for balance of this fiscal year so we would in fact be spending for the balance of this fiscal year at the annual $45 million rate.

I do not know what that would be, but it would seem to me we could start up that $45 million rate May 1 or April 15, whenever we can get the bill through, if we can. I would urge we take this thing out of this bill-that is the thing that causes so much trouble-and fund it without regard to that other budget. It gets caught up in the HEW fight and it does not belong there. It has nothing to do with HEW and it is just an appendage to a bill that seems to be in continual controversy between the executive branch and the Congress.

I think we ought to find some way to lump it in with something else. Why don't you put it in with some of the independent agencies. Why should it be hooked on to HEW. It has no more sense being there than if it were an appendage to the FCC budget.

Would you take a look at that and see if there is not a way we can take it away from this area of veto conflict?

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator BAKER. Could I ask unanimous consent that three questions I have here dealing with copyright legislation, UHF broadcasting and radio reregulation be submitted for the record. I wonder if you would supply answers, Dr. Whitehead?

Dr. WHITEHEAD. I would be pleased to.

(The questions and answers referred to follow :)


In December 1971 your office issued a staff research paper and released a letter you had written to Dean Burch recommending the development of a pilot program to test the feasibility of substantial de-regulation of radio. On February 8, 1973 I introduced a Joint Resolution, S.J. Res. 60, calling on the FCC to establish a project that would build on the FCC's previous actions and further revise the regulatory framework for broadcasters with particular emphasis on small market radio. Are you familiar with S.J. Res. 60, and if so, what is your position on it?

Answer. I am familiar with S.J. Res. 60, which I believe is an excellent means. of giving further emphasis to the FCC's ongoing project of radio deregulation. I support it fully.

As you know, I proposed a review of radio regulation well over a year ago. Subsequently, the FCC, through a committee chaired by Commissioner Wiley, started to review its rules and has already made substantial progress. Your Joint Resolution not only provides a clear statement of congressional intent on the matter of radio deregulation, but shows that the Congress, FCC, and the Executive Branch can work as partners to introduce new concepts into communications policy and to make government regulation responsive to changing needs.


Dr. Whitehead, it is increasingly evident that our society benefits greatly from local participation in our national communications system. It is equally clear that local participation, in the form of more public access, greater sensitivity to community interests and needs, and increased local ownership and training opoprtunities means a stronger national communications system. For these reasons I have been studying ways to encourage development of low-cost UHF television broadcast facilities. (1) Do you think there is a need for greater development of the UHF spectrum? (2) Would your office be willing to undertake a study of the feasibility of developing such a system which might take the form of encouraging equipment manufacturers to design and produce and package relative low cost: UHF facilities or using translators with greater local origination?

Answer. I agree with you completely that local participation, greater public access, and enhanced employment and training opportunities in the media contribute to the quality of our communications system and to our strength as a society generally. Low-cost UHF TV broadcast facilities are one way in which these benefits can be obtained. It may be that expansion in use of the UHF spectrum by encouraging the development and use of such facilities would therefore be desirable.

I intend to explore with the FCC the possibility of a study into these matters and to determine whether such specially designed low-cost station facilities, or translators could be produced.


Dr. Whitehead, last year you and Chairman Dean Burch worked together in conjunction with interested parties to arrive at an agreement that made it possible for the FCC to lift the freeze on cable. An essential provision of the concensus agreement was that the parties to the agreement would support copyright legislation in the Congress and in the event they could not agree on a fee structure, the legislation would provide for arbitration. In view of the fact that the parties have not yet agreed to support a copyright bill, do you expect to make any recommendations to the FCC that the regulations presently in effect be changed?

Answer. I have not fully determined a course of action, as it is not clear that copyright legislation supported by all concerned parties will not be forthcoming. I do feel, however, that such legislation is an essential element of the FCC's distant signal regulation, since the compromise agreed upon by cable operators, broadcasters, and the program suppliers, was predicted on the expectancy of copyright legislation requiring cable to pay its fair share to program production


Nevertheless, if there is no agreement among the parties on copyright legislation, the essential copyright element of the FCC's cable rules will be missing. This would certainly require a reassessment of the rules, and perhaps they will have to be changed.


Dr. Whitehead, you have adopted as an overall communications policy encouragement of competition as a means of most effectively and efficiently meeting the needs of our society. In an effort to implement this process you have pointed to the limitations imposed on our national broadcasting system by our present dependence on the three TV networks. Your emphasis on diversity in several of your speeches is interesting and thought provoking. But what evidence do you have that the concentration of economic power in the networks is contrary to the viewers' interest? In view of the high cost of producing quality programs, what evidence do you have that there is any alternative to such concentration which makes possible the large investments necessary or, in other words, aren't net works the only entities that can afford the high cost of network programs?

In your speech to the Arts/Media Conference of the National Council on the Arts and the National Endowment of the Arts you talked of the "demand pull" of the viewer as an effective way to obtain more diversity on TV. (1) Don't we already have such a system through the reliance of the broadcasters on ratings which determine, for the most part, whether a particular show remains on the air? (2) Aren't you really getting back to the concept of specialized programming, not that programming directed at a mass audience as done by the networks? While you emphasize the need for program diversity through specialized programming, I note in Advertising Age, a new publication entitled "Pay TV" and in Broadcasting Magazine that the prospective operators of pay cable systems envision for the most part concentrating on sports and feature films. As a policy matter how do we guarantee that (1) pay cable competes fairly with over the air broadcasting in view of the regulatory restrictions presently placed on broadcasters and I am thinking particularly of the public affairs and news requirements which are expensive and which are often not commercially viable; (2) how do we guarantee that pay cable and cable television achieve their potential and don't rely solely on sports and feature films; (3) if we do allow pay cable to carry sports that have been carried by commercial television, aren't we taking away the broadcaster's economic base? And if the broadcasters go out of business, how do we insure that the low income and rural residents don't lose their television service?

90-184-73- -4

« السابقةمتابعة »