In Re POLICY STATEMENT CONCERNING COMPARATIVE HEARINGS
INVOLVING
REGULAR RENEWAL APPLICANTS
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
22 F.C.C.2d 424
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-62
JANUARY 15, 1970
JUDGES:
THE COMMISSION, BY COMMISSIONERS
BURCH (CHAIRMAN), BARTLEY, ROBERT E. LEE, COX, H. REX LEE, AND WELLS, WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT,
ISSUED THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC NOTICE:
OPINION:
[*424] In 1965 the
Commission issued a policy statement on comparative broadcast hearings which is
applicable to hearings to choose among qualified new applicants for the same
broadcast facilities. See "Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast
Hearings," 1 F.C.C. 2d 393. We believe that we should now issue a similar
statement as to the comparative hearing where a new applicant is contesting
with a licensee seeking renewal of license. We have, of course, set forth
our policies in this respect in several cases, and indeed, have done so in
designating issues in some very recent cases. For example, In re
Application of RKO General, Inc. F.C.C. 69-1335, paragraph 8; In re Application
of Lamar Life Broadcasting Co., F.C.C. 69-1336, paragraph 2. There has,
however, been considerable controversy on this issue, as shown by the hearings on
S. 2004 now going forward before the Senate Subcommittee on
Communications. Issuance of this statement will therefore contribute to
clarity of our policies in this important area. This will be of
assistance to the examiners who initially decide the cases. It will
expedite the hearing process and promote consistency of decision. Above
all, by informing the broadcast industry and the public of the applicable
standards, the public interest "in the larger and more effective use of
radio" (sec. 303(g) of the Communications Act) will be served.
The statutory scheme calls for a
limited license term. This permits Commission review of the broadcaster's
stewardship at regular intervals to determine whether the public interest is
being served; it also provides an opportunity for new parties to demonstrate in
public hearings that they will better serve the public interest. It is
this latter aspect of the statutory scheme with which we deal here. See
sections 307, 308, 309.
The public interest standard is
served, we believe, by polices which insure that the needs and interests of the
listening and viewing public will be amply served by the community's local
broadcast outlets. Promotion of this goal, with respect to competing
challenges to renewal applicants, calls for the balancing of two obvious
considerations. The first is that the public receive the benefits of the
statutory spur inherent [*425] in the fact there can be a
challenge, and indeed, where the public interest so requires, that the new applicant
be preferred. The second is that the comparative hearing policy in this
area must not undermine predictability and stability of broadcast operation.
The institution of a broadcast
service requires a substantial investment, particularly in television, and even
where the investment is small it is likely to be relatively large to the person
making it. It would disserve the public interest to reward good public
service by a broadcaster by terminating the authority to continue that
service. If the license is given subject to withdrawal despite a record
of such good service, it will simply not be possible to induce people to enter
the field and render what has become a vital public service. Indeed,
rather than an incentive to qualified broadcasters to provide good service, it
would be an inducement to the opportunist who might seek a license and then
provide the barest minimum of service which would permit short run maximization
of profit, on the theory that the license might be terminated whether he
rendered a good service or not. The broadcast field thus must have
stability, not only for those who engage in it but, even more important, from
the standpoint of service to the public.
We believe that these two
considerations call for the following policy -- namely, that if the applicant
for renewal of license shows in a hearing with a competing applicant that its
program service during the preceding license term has been substantially attend
to meeting the needs and interests of its area, n1 and that the operation of the station has not otherwise been
characterized by serious deficiencies, he will be preferred over the newcomer
and his application for renewal will be granted. His operation is not
based merely upon promises to serve solidly the public interest. He has done
so. Since the basic purpose of the act -- substantial service to the
public -- is being met, it follows that the considerations of predictability
and stability, which also contribute vitally to that basic purpose, call for
renewal.
n1 We wish to stress that we are not
using the term "substantially" in any sense of partial performance in
the public interest. On the contrary, as the discussion within makes
clear, it is used in the sense of "solid", "strong", etc. (see
p. 3, supra) performance as contrasted with a service only minimally meeting
the needs and interests of the area. In short, we would distinguish
between two types of situations -- one where the licensee has served the public
interest but in the least permissible fashion still sufficient to get a renewal
in the absence of competing applications (defined herein as minimal service)
and the other where he has done so in an ample, solid fashion (defined herein
as substantial service).
This is not new policy. It was
largely formulated in the leading decision in this field, Hearst Radio, Inc.
(WBAL), 15 F.C.C. 1149 (1951), where the Commission, in favoring the existing
licensee, stated that where a choice must be made between an existing licensee
and a newcomer, a grant will normally be made to the existing station if its
operation has been meritorious, and that a good record may outweigh preferences
to a newcomer on such factors as local residence and integration of ownership
and management. The WBAL policy was followed in In re Wabash Valley Broadcasting
Corp., 35 F.C.C. 677 (1963), and cited with approval in recent actions (see,
e.g., In re Application of RKO General, Inc., F.C.C. 69-1335, par. 8).
If on the other hand the hearing
record shows that the renewal applicant has not substantially met or served the
needs and interests of his area, he would obtain no controlling
preference. On the contrary, [*426] if the competing new
applicant establishes that he would substantially serve the public interest, n2 he should clearly be preferred over one who was
given the opportunity to do so but chose instead to deliver less than
substantial service to the public. In short, the past record of the
renewal applicant is still the critical factor, but here it militates against
renewal and in favor of the new applicant, provided that the latter establishes
that he would solidly serve the public interest.
n2 With several such new applicants,
the "Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings," 1 F.C.C. 2d
393, would be the basis for decision as among them.
We recognize that the foregoing
policy does not work with mathematical precision, and that particular factual
circumstances will have to be explored in the hearing process. For
example, if there are substantial questions as to whether the renewal
applicant's operation has been characterized by serious deficiencies -- such as
rigged quizzes, violations of the Fairness Doctrine, over-commercialization,
broadcast of lotteries, violation of racial discrimination rules, or fraudulent
practices as to advertisers -- the facts as to these matters would have to be
established, and any demerits resulting therefrom weighed against the renewal
applicant in the public interest judgment which must be made. It is not
possible to lay down any more precise standards here, since so much will depend
on the particular facts.
Further, we recognize that the terms
"substantially" and "minimally" also lack mathematical
precision. However, the terms constitute perfectly appropriate
standards. Thus, the word "substantially" is defined as
"strong; solid; firm; much; considerable; ample; large; of considerable
worth or value; important" (Webster's New World Dictionary College
Edition, p. 1454); n3 the word "minimal"
carries the pertinent definition, "smallest permissible" (Id. at p.
937). However, application and evolution of the standards would again be
left to the hearing process. The renewal applicant would have a full
opportunity to establish that his operation was a "substantial" one,
solidly meeting the needs and interests of his area, and not otherwise
characterized by serious deficiencies. He could, of course, call upon
community leaders to corroborate his position. On the other hand, the
competing party would have the same opportunity in the hearing process to demonstrate
his allegation that the existing licensee's operation has been a minimal
one. And he, too, can call upon community leaders to testify to this
effect if that is, indeed, the case. The programming performance of the
licensee in all programming categories (including the licensee's response to
his ascertainments of community needs and problems) is thus vital to the
judgment to be made. Further, although the matter is not a comparative
one but rather whether substantial service has been rendered, the efforts of
like stations in the community or elsewhere to supply substantial service are
also relevant in this critical judgment area. There would, of course, be
the necessity of taking into account pertinent standards which are evolved by
the Commission in this field.
n3 We also note that the term is
frequently employed in statutes, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 13 (the Clayton Act); 42
U.S.C. 403(f)(4)(A) (Social Security Act); 26 U.S.C. 382(a)(1)(C) (Internal Revenue
Act); indeed, it is used in the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A).
Two other points deserve stress in
this respect. First, unlike the case involving new applicants (see 1
F.C.C. 2d at pp. 397-98), a [*427] programming record will be considered
even though it is not alleged to be either unusually good or bad. Thus,
the renewal applicant will not have to demonstrate that his past service has
been "exceptionally" or "unusually" worthy. Were that
the criterion, only the exceptional or unusual renewal applicant would win a
grant of continued authority to operate, and the great majority of the industry
would be told that even though they provide strong, solid service of
significant value to their communities, their licenses will be subject to
termination. As stated at the outset, such a policy would disserve the
public interest. And conversely, a new applicant would not have to allege
that the existing licensee's operation had been unusually bad.
Second, the renewal applicant must
run upon his past record in the last license term. If, after the
competing application is filed, he upgrades his operation, no evidence of such
upgrading will be accepted or may be relied upon. To give weight to such
belated efforts to meet his obligation to provide substantial service would
undermine the policy of the competitive spur which Congress wisely included in
the Communications Act. A renewal applicant could simply supply minimal
service from year to year, secure in the knowledge that even if a competing
application were filed at the time of renewal, he could then upgrade to show
substantial service. Therefore, no evidence as to improved service after
the filing of the competing application (or a petition to deny directed to
programming service) will be deemed admissible in the hearing. This is,
of course, a departure from the procedure permitted in the WBAL case.
Further, the renewal applicant,
seeking to obtain the benefits of this policy, cannot properly supply minimal
service during the first 2 years of his license term and then upgrade during
the third year because of the imminence of possible challenge. The act
seeks to promote conscientious and good faith substantial service to the public
-- not a triennial flirtation with such service. Therefore, while we
recognize that the licensee's programming efforts do and must vary over a
license period and hopefully are continually being improved, we could not weigh
as controlling or determinative a pattern of operation which showed substantial
service only in the last year of the license term.
We note also the question of the
applicability here of our policy of diversification of the media of mass
communications. We do not denigrate in any way the importance of that
policy or the logic of its applicability in a comparative hearing involving new
applicants. See 1 F.C.C. 2d at pp. 394-95. We have stated, however, that
as a general matter, the renewal process is not an appropriate way to
restructure the broadcast industry. For example, In re Application for
Renewal of WTOP-TV, F.C.C. 69-1312. Where a renewal applicant with other
media interests has in the past been awarded a grant as consistent with the
Commission's multiple ownership rules and policies, and thereafter proceeded to
render good service to his area, it would appear unfair and unsound to follow
policies whereby he could be ousted on the basis of a comparative demerit
because of his media [*428] holdings. n4 Here again, the stability of a large percentage of
the broadcast industry, particularly in television, would be undermined by such
a policy. Our rules and policies permit multiple ownership, and the
industry has made substantial commitments based on those rules and
policies. These rules are not sacrosanct, and indeed should and must be subject
to periodic review. We are now engaged in such review in a number of
overall rulemaking proceedings. For example, FCC dockets Nos. 18110 and
18397. If any rulemaking proceeding, now pending or initiated in the
future, results in a restructuring of the industry, it will do so with proper
safeguards, including most importantly an appropriate period for
divestment. Such a way of proceeding is, we believe, sound and "best
conduces to the proper dispatch of business and the ends of justice;"
section 4(j) of the Communications Act; WJR v. F.C.C., 337 U.S. 265, 282
(1948). In short, whatever action may be called for in special hearings where
particular facts concerning undue concentration or abusive conduct in this
respect are alleged, n5 the overall structure of the
industry, so far as multiple ownership and diversification are concerned,
should be the subject of general rulemaking proceedings rather than ad hoc
decisions in renewal hearings.
n4 Of course, if such a renewal
applicant has not rendered substantial service, he might also face a demerit on
the diversification ground. Such an additional demerit might well be
academic, since, barring the case where his competitor is also deficient in
some important respect, a past record of minimal service to the public is
likely to be determinative, in and of itself, against the renewal applicant.
n5 In re Applications of Midwest
Television, Inc., F.C.C. 69-261; In re Applications of Chronicie Broadcasting
Company, F.C.C. 69-262.
We believe the issuance of this
policy statement will expedite the hearing process in this area.
Examiners will be clear as to our general policy. Indeed, it may
significantly shorten hearings. If the examiner, at the conclusion of the
initial phase of a hearing dealing with a renewal applicant's past record, has
no doubt that the existing licensee's record of service to the public is a
substantial one, without serious deficiencies, he should, either on his own
motion or that of the renewal applicant, halt the proceeding at this point and
issue an initial decision based upon that determination. However, where
the matter is in any way close or in doubt, it would be more appropriate to
proceed with the hearing, and thus insure that the record is complete when the
matter comes before the Commission.
Most important, as stated above, the
policy will markedly serve the public interest by informing the broadcast
industry and the public of their responsibilities and rights. And, in
doing so, it retains the competitive spur provided in the Communications Act
and yet insures predictability and stability of broadcast operations. For
the policy says to the broadcaster, "if you do a solid job as a public
trustee of this frequency, you will be renewed; your future is thus really in your
hands." The policy says to all interested persons, "The act seeks to
promote not just minimal service but solid, substantial service; if at renewal
time, a group of you believe that an applicant has not rendered such service,
you may file competing application and will be afforded the opportunity, in a
hearing the establish your case. If you do so, you will be granted
authority to operate on the frequency [*429] in place of the
renewal applicant who has failed to provide substantial service." n6
n6 It would be expected that
appropriate arrangements could and would be made to purchase facilities owned
by the existing station. See, e.g., In re Application of Biscayne
Television Corp., 33 F.C.C. 851(1962).
The policy is thus fair to the
broadcaster and to the new contestant, and above all it serves the listening
and viewing public. To the argument that the hearing process itself is an
unfair burden, the short answer is that such hearings stem directly from the
statutory scheme, and particularly from the notion that the broadcaster is a
public trustee who can acquire no permanent ownership of the frequency on which
he operates. With even-handed administration of the policy, there is
unlikely to be any plethora of frivolous challengers, in view of the significant
costs involved. n7 And in any event, where frivolous
challenges are made, the examiner may in his discretion, and should, take
action to avoid a long drawn out hearing. In the final analysis, the
broadcaster has, we believe, the answer within his hands -- if he really knows
and cares about his area and does a good substantial job of serving it, he will
discourage challenges to his renewal applications.
n7 We wish to stress, with the
issuance of this statement, that barring extraordinary circumstances, the
challenger to a renewal cannot be reimbursed in any amount for his expenditures
in preparing and prosecuting his application, nor will merger agreements be
countenanced.
We recognized that there can be
concern whether this policy will prevent a new applicant willing to provide a
superior service from supplanting an existing licensee who has broadcast a
substantial, but less impressive, service. But, as stated, there are
obvious risks in accepting promises over proven performance at a substantial level,
and we see no way, other than the one we have taken, adequately to preserve the
stability and predictability which are important aspects of the overall public
interest. We believe that there will still be real incentives for those
existing broadcasters willing to provide superior service to do so, since the
higher the level of their operations, the less likely that new applicants will
file against them at renewal time. And as the Commission spells out, in
decided cases, the elements which constitute substantial service, it will serve
the private interests of broadcasters to make certain that their operations
fall clearly into that class of service. Thus the public interest will be
served by the continuing efforts of broadcasters to minimize the chances of the
filing of competing applications.
The foregoing policy is limited to
comparative hearings between renewal applicants and new applicants for the same
facilities in the same community. The restriction to the same community
is necessary to exclude from this policy contests between applicants for
different communities which are governed by the provisions of section 307(b) of
the act, since this section requires that the grant go to the community most in
need of the station, without regard to the comparative qualities of the
applicants. In practical effect, this section applies solely to standard
broadcasting. n8 Such AM cases involve
considerations quite different from those with which the Commission is
concerned here, and are thus not dealt with in this statement.
n8 The policy set forth herein will
apply where a new applicant files against a renewal applicant, seeking to use
the contested FM or TV channel in a different community under the provisions of
secs. 73.203(b) or 73.607(b) of our rules.
[*430] As shown by our
recent actions (see p. 1, supra), this policy is of course applicable to
pending proceedings, and indeed, we stress again that its essential holding
reflects long established precedent. The policy statement is
inapplicable, however, to those unusual cases, generally involving court
remands, in which the renewal applicant, for sui generis reasons, is to be
treated as a new applicant. In such cases, while the past record,
favorable or unfavorable, is of course pertinent and should be examined, the
WBAL policy, as here amplified, is inapplicable; a good record without serious
deficiencies will not be controlling in such cases so as to obviate the
comparative analysis called for in the "Policy Statement on Comparative
Broadcast Hearings," 1 F.C.C. 2d 393 (1965).
In sum, we believe that this is the
best possible balancing of the competing aspects of the public interest which
are to be served in this area. However, the promise of this policy for
truly substantial service to the public will depend on the consistency and
determination with which the Commission carries out this policy in the actual
cases which come before it. Only if we truly develop and hold to a solid
concept of substantial service, will the public derive the benefits this policy
is designed to bring them. We pledge that we will do so, and in turn call
upon the industry and interested public to play their vital roles in the
implementation of this policy.
DISSENT:
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
The issues surrounding citizen
participation in the license renewal process are among the most complex and
significant before the FCC.
The nature of the American political
process is such that any efforts to regulate broadcasting by either Congress or
this Commission must constitute a negotiated compromise of sorts. That
the broadcasting industry today is perhaps the most powerful Washington lobby
in our Nation's history is generally acknowledged. Popular reform
movements always start with a substantial disadvantage. For none is that
more true than for those groups trying to improve the contribution of
television to the quality of American life. But, then, the stakes are
higher.
There is no question but that the American
people have been deprived of substantial rights by our action today.
There is also no question that the results could be much worse -- given the
commitment of the broadcasting industry on this issue, and the introduction of
legislation (such as S. 2004) by 22 Senators and 118 Representatives.
The policy statement has been
discussed by us calmly and at length. Each Commissioner has endeavored to
balance the conflicting interests of broadcasters and public. The
language has been revised in a spirit of accommodation; the public interest is
better served as a result. Because of my participation in these drafting
efforts I feel considerable inclination to concur. On agonizing balance,
however, I find I cannot.
There is a germ of legitimate
concern in the broadcasters' position. (1) It is inequitable that a
broadcaster who has made an exceptional effort to serve the needs of his
community, and whose programming is outstanding by any measure, should be
subjected to the expense [*431] and burden of lengthy hearings
merely because some fly-by-night chooses to take a crack at his license.
(2) When evaluating a competing application in a renewal case, a record of
outstanding performance by the licensee obviously should be given considerable
weight. (3) It is far better to provide consistent national standards for
station ownership by general rulemaking (with divestiture if necessary) than to
involve them on the case-by-case happenstance of which stations' licenses
happen to be challenged. (4) There are some public benefits from
stability for those broadcasters who take their responsibilities seriously.
What the public loses by this
statement can be summarized in the word "competition." The theory of
the 1934 Communications Act was that the public would be served by the best
licensees available. No licensee would have a right to have his license
renewed. Each would be open to the risk that a competing applicant would
offer a service preferable in some way, and thereby win the license away.
The FCC was to choose the best from among the applications before it, whether
the incumbent's record was mediocre or excellent. This is the principle
of the marketplace: the public is assured the best products by opening the
market to all sellers, comparing their products, and rewarding the best with
the greater sales. The analogy in broadcasting is the competing
application. The FCC is the public's proxy. It is we who must make
the choice among competitors; it is the public that receives the benefits (or
burdens) of our choice.
What we have done in this policy
statement is comparable to providing that there could be no new, competing
magazines, automobiles or breakfast cereals unless a new entrant could
demonstrate that the presently available products are not substantially serving
the public interest. The affected industry's arguments on behalf of such
a policy would be quite similar to those presented by the broadcasters in this
instance. But this country has long believed that the public will be better
served over the long run by free and open competition. And after lengthy
consideration it is still my belief that, on balance, the principle is equally
valid in the broadcasting industry.
Given the harsh political reality that
the broadcasters have the power to obtain some measure of protection against
competing applications, there are at least some possible public benefits from
the policy statement we have drafted.
It is impossible, or at least
unlikely, that there would ever be a sufficient number of public organizations
to contest each of the 7,500 radio and television station licenses in this
country. Any truly effective efforts at reform will have to apply to all
stations equally. This FCC policy statement may have some salutary impact
industry-wide.
What we have created, in effect, are
four levels of performance: (1) Not minimally acceptable. A licensee in
this category will not have his license renewed, whether or not it is
contested. (2) Minimally acceptable. If it meets this standard,
licensee without a competing application will be renewed by the
Commission. If it is challenged, however, it will be set for
hearing. (3) Substantial service. If a licensee is challenged at
renewal by a competing applicant, the hearing will be terminated if the
examiner finds, after initial evaluation, that the [*432] licensee
has been "substantially attuned to meeting the needs and interests of its
area." This amounts to a form of summary judgment, saving both broadcaster
and challenger the burden of a lengthy hearing likely to be futile. (4)
Comparative public interest. If a licensee under challenge by a competing
applicant cannot meet the substantial service standard, a full evidentiary
hearing will be held. The licensee must then demonstrate that its renewal
will serve the public interest, and would be comparatively preferable to
awarding the license to the challenger.
The upshot may very well be an
improvement in radio and television programming performance by all licensees.
At the present time many
broadcasters know that a minimal performance is all that's required for license
renewal. This belief is exacerbated by an FCC majority's willingness to
find that no news and public affairs adequately serves the public interest,
Herman C. Hall, 11 F.C.C. 2d 344 (1968), and that a licensee on probation who
has bilked advertisers of $6,000 through fraud is entitled to another
probationary term, Star Stations of Indiana, Inc., 19 F.C.C. 2d 991, 996
(1969). Commissioner Cox and I have tried, so far without success, to
urge the application of some standards, however minimal, to the Commission's
license renewal process. Renewal of Standard Broadcast and Television
Licenses [Oklahoma], 14 F.C.C. 1 (1968); Renewal of Standard Broadcast and
Television Licenses [New York-New Jersey], 18 F.C.C. 2d 268, 269, 322 (1969);
District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia Broadcast License
Renewals, F.C.C. 2d (1969).
The industry's response to the
initial WHDH decision, WHDH, Inc., 16 F.C.C. 2d (1969), and the increased
effectiveness of public groups devoted to improving broadcasting has been
confused and irrational, and of mixed impact on programming. The policy
statement will remove much of this confusion.
The Commission has made it clear
that it will not permit chaos to reign, that the better broadcasters have
nothing to fear, and that all can get back to the task of programming their
stations in ways that serve the awesome needs of the American people for
quality entertainment, cultural enrichment, continuing education, and
information and analysis about life in the communities and world in which they
live. The more responsible broadcasters now know they will be protected
from harassment from audience on FCC.
On the other hand, the public now
clearly understands that a new day has dawned; licenses will not be
automatically renewed; those licensees not offering substantial service are
open to challenge.
The below-average broadcasters
should respond to this new state of affairs by upgrading their programming from
a minimal to a substantial performance. They now have a very real
incentive to purchase this renewal insurance against the possibility of a
challenge.
Moreover, the statement only relates
to competing license challenges, not petitions to deny license renewals.
Such petitions may still be filed and considered against any licensee.
Their consideration in the future may very well be more rigorous than at
present. No smart licensee will lightly risk walking too close to the
cliff of minimal performance. [*433] And, of course, a
competing license challenge may also be filed against any licensee in good
faith, even though it ultimately may be rejected by an examiner. Only the
broadcaster who is confident his performance is well above average can be
assured of the outcome.
And, in the last analysis, as the
statement concedes, its ultimate impact will only be known after the examiners,
FCC and courts have processed some cases. No statements of policy can
affect the FCC's will to act (or lack thereof) in deciding whether to deny
license renewal in one-hundredth of 1 percent, one-tenth of 1 percent, 1
percent or 10 percent of the renewal cases coming before it. (With
roughly 2,500 license renewals a year, these percentages are equivalent to one
denial every 4 years, two or three a year, 25 a year and 250 a year,
respectively.) No statement of policy can be the basis for predicting such
percentages with any greater precision until the results are in.
There are legal and public relations
considerations involved in issuing this statement as fait accompli rather than
as proposed rulemaking for public comment. I will not review the issues
here, except to say that I think it would have been wiser, on such a
controversial matter, to use the rulemaking procedure.
I cannot avoid reference, in
passing, to the significance of this particular kind of necessary compromise
with broadcasting's power. The record of Congress and the Commission over
the years shows their relative powerlessness to do anything more than spar with
America's "other government," represented by the mass media.
Effective reform, more and more, rests with self-help measures taken by the
public. Recognizing this, the broadcasters now seek to curtail the
procedural remedies of the people themselves. The industry's power is
such that it will succeed, one way or another. This is said, because --
unlike the substantive concessions it has obtained from Government from time to
time -- there is no turning back a procedural concession of this kind once
granted. Not only can the industry win every ball game, it is now in a
position to change the rules.
I have considerable sympathy and
respect for my colleagues' commendable and good faith effort to resolve this
conflict between formidable political power and virtually unrepresented public
interest. They have tried. They really have. And it is not at
all clear to me that more than they have done would have been politically
possible, or could have withstood political appeal. It is not even clear
that today's effort is secure.
Thus it is, with no feelings save
understanding, frustration and sorrow, that I dissent.