In re
Applications of HOUSTON CONSOLIDATED TELEVISION CO., HOUSTON, TEX. (ASSIGNOR)
AND CAPITAL CITIES BROADCASTING CORP., PROVIDENCE, R.I. (ASSIGNEE); CAPITAL
CITIES BROADCASTING CORP., PROVIDENCE, R.I. (ASSIGNOR) AND PROVIDENCE
TELEVISION, INC., PROVIDENCE, R.I. (ASSIGNEE) For Assignment of Licenses
Files Nos. BALCT-321,
BALTP-207, BALTS-214, BALQ-37; Files Nos. BALCT-322,
BALRE-1531, BALTP-206, BALQ-36
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
8 F.C.C.2d 548 (1967); 10
Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 205
June 14, 1967 Adopted
The Commission, by Commissioners Hyde, Bartley, Lee, Cox, Loevenger,
and Johnson, with Commissioner Bartley dissenting, Commissioner
Johnson dissenting and issuing a statement, and Commissioner Wadsworth
absent.
[*548] Granted assignment of the license of VHF television
station KTRK-TV (channel 13), Houston, Tex., and auxiliaries KC-5514, KD-6245, KH-8670,
KKV-39, and KST-34 from Houston Consolidated Television Co. to Capital Cities
Broadcasting Corp.
Also granted was the application for assignment of the license of VHF
television station WPRO-TV (channel 12), Providence, R.I., from Capital Cities Broadcasting
Corp. to Providence Television, Inc.
This case constitutes Commission approval of a multiple station owner's
acquisition of a fourth station in one of the top 50 markets -- albeit an
exchange of one such station for another.
The Commission's action is, thus, in apparent conflict with its
proposed Top Fifty Markets Policy, 30 F.R. 8166, 5 P&F Radio Reg. 2d 571
(1965). That policy would prohibit a single owner controlling more than a total
of two VHF and one UHF television stations in the 50 most populous television
markets. The proposed policy is, in that respect, a refinement of this
Commission's multiple ownership rules, which limit the number of stations
anyone can own to a total of seven AM and seven FM radio, and five VHF and two
UHF television [*549] stations. 47 C.F.R., section 73.35; 47
C.F.R., section 73.240; 47 C.F.R., section 73.636 (1967).
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Harvey Radio
Laboratories, Inc. (WXHR, Boston), 6 F.C.C. 2d 898, 903 (1966), I do not
believe the Commission should take case-by-case actions inconsistent with its
proposed Top Fifty Markets Policy until it has finally passed upon that
policy. Consistent with my reasons and vote in WXHR I dissent here.
I believe that questions of the ownership and responsible operation of
the major outlets of information and opinion in a free society are among the
most important confronting the country, the Congress, and this
Commission. See generally, e.g., ABC-ITT Merger, 7 F.C.C. 2d 245, 278
(1967), Paris-Bourbon County Broadcasting, Inc., 6 F.C.C. 2d 894, 9 P&F
Radio Reg. 2d 122 (1967). There are numerous illogical and inconsistent
features of our current media ownership laws and policy. For example,
although a single owner may not control two AM radio stations (or two
television stations) with overlapping signals (47 C.F.R. section 73.35; 47
C.F.R. section 73.636 (1967)), there is nothing to prevent the common
ownership, in a single market, of an AM and an FM radio station, or an AM and
FM radio station and a UHF or VHF television station. Concentrated
regional ownership, newspaper ownership of broadcast properties, or local
newspaper-AM-FM monopolies may be given great weight in comparative hearings
and virtually ignored in considering unopposed applications or license renewal
proceedings. See Farrangut Television Corp.,
F.C.C. 2d, (1967) (dissenting statement) (FCC 67-611, May 22, 1967).
Indeed the Top Fifty Markets proposal grew out of the Commission's awareness
that it was illogical to equate the issues involved in ownership of television
stations in the most profitable and populous markets with the issues involved
in joint ownership of five geographically diffuse VHF televisions stations in
the 100 smallest markets.
Not only are the present Commission policies toward ownership of
broadcast properties inconsistent and illogical, there are other relevant
factors that should be considered. Just by way of a few examples, what is
the effect of our present ownership rules on the potential for establishing a
fourth network? Are multiple owners better able to compete as affiliates
with networks? What is the effect of multiple ownership on the broadcast
product of a licensee? What is the effect of our ownership rules on entry
into UHF? What "local service" is needed, and is being
provided, in fact, by local stations today? What is the impact of the
type of ownership (conglomerate, other media interests, total area served,
media monopolies) on the service and program product provided? How much
diversity do we want at what cost in terms of effective organization, or
unrenumerative programming, and what has been our experience in terms of the
ability and actual performance of multiple owners?
I believe these and comparable issues are interrelated and ought to be
viewed and evaluated as such. I would like to see this Commission
undertake such evaluation. Meanwhile, it does not ease the ultimate
resolution of such issues, in my judgment, to take actions contrary to an
interim policy concerning control in media while evaluating its wisdom.