In the Matter of AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. AND THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. Charges and Classifications for Private Line Telegraph and Private Line Telephotograph Services Furnished to the Press

Docket No. 15094

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

24 F.C.C.2d 56

RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-252

April 28, 1970 Released; Adopted March 11, 1970

JUDGES:

COMMISSIONER BARTLEY FOR THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.

OPINION:

[*565] 1. In the AT&T and Western Union Private Line Cases, Final Decision adopted January 28, 1963, 34 FCC 217, the Commission conducted a comprehensive investigation of the private line rate structure contained in the tariffs of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Western Union Telegraph Company. The Commission concluded that substantial changes in rate design were necessary and prescribed specific private line rates for many units of service and [*566] authorized rates for others. The general effect of the changes in rates was to increase the cost of private line telegraph and telephotograph service. In the final decision, however, we expressed concern that the increase in rates, if applied to the press users of private line services, might significantly impair the widespread dissemination of news information. 34 FCC at 233. Accordingly, on petition for reconsideration of the final decision, we excepted from our decision the private line telegraph and telephotograph services supplied in press n1 use, thereby permitting the then existing rates for [**3] such services to remain in effect. Private Line Case, 34 FCC 1094, 1098-1099 (1963).

n1 The term "press" as used herein includes press associations, news agencies, radio networks, radio broadcasting stations, newspapers, periodicals, and other publications of general circulation which collect, disseminate, or publish general news for the information of the public. The term "general news" includes an account of current events; public announcements; information relating to finance, science, commerce, religion, civic, or other public organizations; and all like information of general public interest.

2. By an Order adopted on May 27, 1963 in Docket No. 1594 (FCC 63-492, 28 Fed. Reg. 5540), the Commission initiated an investigation into the lawfulness of the existing charges for private line telegraph and telephotograph services furnished to the press. Following hearings, the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau released a recommended decision on April 1, 1965 (Mimeo No. 65839), stating that "the record indicates that the rates authorized in the 'Private Line Case' would not have any material adverse effect on the dissemination of the news if applied to press users."

3. While [**4] the Docket No. 15094 proceeding was still before the Commission, it had occasion to consider the matter in connection with a petition for special relief by certain press entities in the Telpak Sharing Case, 9 FCC 2d 147 (1967). Therein we noted that the hearing record in the Docket No. 15094 proceeding did not include evidence concerning material facts and circumstances which had developed since the closing of that record. Accordingly, in an Order, 10 FCC 2d 677 (1967), we directed the record to be reopened for the consideration of issues specified for the purpose of bringing the record up to date. The Hearing Examiner was ordered to file a recommended decision, which would supersede the one filed earlier by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau. After filing his recommended decision, the Examiner was to certify the record to the Commission for final decision. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 2d 689 (1968), the Review Board expanded the scope of the case beyond private line telegraph and telephotograph services, placing in issue the question whether there should be special press rates and conditions for other private line services. The issues as enlarged by the Review [**5] Board were as follows:

A(1). The extent to which the charges, regulations, practices and classifications currently applicable to non-press users of the private line telegraph and private line telephotograph services offered by AT&T and Western Union to non-press users would, if applied to press users, diminish, limit or impair the widespread dissemination of the news.

A(2). The extent to which the currently effective charges, regulations, practices and classifications for any private line service [*567] used by the press including any revisions thereof filed by AT&T of Western Union, tend to, or would diminish, limit or impair the widespread dissemination of news.

B. Whether the currently effective charges, regulations, classifications or practices specially applicable to press users of private line telegraph and private line telephotograph services are unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of Section 201(b) of the Act or unduly discriminatory or preferential within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Act.

C. Whether the Commission should prescribe or authorize a specific classification for press users of private line telegraph and telephotograph services or other private [**6] line services, with different charges and regulations for such class of users and communications, and, if so, what charges and regulations should be prescribed or authorized for such classification of users and communications.

4. The Hearing Examiner's Initial Decision was released on June 17, 1969. On the basis of the evidentiary record, he concluded that application to the press of the charges, regulations, practices and classifications currently applicable to other users of private line services would not diminish, limit or impair the widespread dissemination of the news. As required by our designation order, the record was certified to the Commission for final decision. We agree with the Examiner's ultimate determination and, except as modified herein and in our rulings on exceptions set forth in the Appendix attached hereto, we affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Initial Decision.

5. Initially, it should be noted that the Commission in the 1963 Private Line decisions made certain determinations which are basic to our affirmance of the Initial Decision in this case. These determinations are as follows:

(a) Both AT&T and Western Union have [**7] realized unreasonably low levels of earnings from private line telegraph services; and revenues from private line telegraph and telephotograph services furnished to all users, including the press under the rate schedules effective prior to the 1963 Final Decision are inadequate. (These rate schedules, while eliminated for non-press users, remain presently in effect for the press.) 34 FCC at 228, 1098.

(b) There is no cost justification for the existing or any other clock-hour rate differences since there is little, if any, difference in the costs of furnishing service during the day or night. 34 FCC at 232.

(c) Private line telegraph channels leased for any part of the 24-hour day are not useful to provide leased or other services at other times. Since, generally, it is neither practical nor economical to share an intercity channel facility between separate private line leases, the cost of providing continuous service is not substantially greater than for minimum period service. 34 FCC at 232, 307.

(d) There is no substantial difference between the costs of furnishing private line service to the press and other customers. 34 FCC at 370, 1098.

[*568] (e) Although the Commission [**8] is authorized to provide for special press rates, there is no policy of the Federal Government which requires lower private line rates for the press than for other users. 34 FCC at 369.

6. There determinations, upon which we here rely, dispose of many of the press' objections to the Initial Decision. They also demonstrate that there are no service or cost differences which would justify either lower press rates or preferential press conditions, such as part-time leasing privileges, lower night rates, or other clock-hour rate differences advocated by the press. Nor is there any governmental policy which dictates such rates or conditions. There fore, preferential press rates or conditions will be authorized only if the record establishes that the public interest in the widespread dissemination of the news requires preferential press treatment. Thus, the crucial issue in this proceeding is whether application to the press of the commercial rates and conditions for private line service would cause significant impairment of news dissemination.

7. In resolving the issues designated in this proceeding, the Hearing Examiner properly imposed upon the press parties the burden of [**9] proving that elimination of the current press rates and conditions for private line services would necessitate the curtailment of subscribers' access to news information or would otherwise impair the widespread dissemination of the news to an extent inimical to the public interest. Section 204 of the Communications Act, upon which the press relies, places the burden on the carriers to show that the rates are reasonable, but the provision is not applicable to the question under consideration in this proceeding. We are not here concerned with the reasonableness of the rates since that issue was resolved in the 1963 Final Decision, supra. The question now before us is whether the press merits an exemption from such reasonable rates. With respect to that issue, the press parties have the burden of affirmatively showing by reliable, probative and substantial evidence that the exemption is necessary in order to prevent a significant impairment of news dissemination. n2

n2 See AT&T and Western Union Private Line Cases, 34 FCC at 233.

8. In agreement with the Examiner, we conclude that the press parties have not carried their burden. It may be, as the press parties assert, that [**10] the percentage increases to some subscribers resulting from elimination of the special press rates will be substantial. However, percentage figures have decisional weight only to the extent that the increases are shown to have an adverse impact upon the subscribers' access to news information or upon the widespread dissemination of the news. Thus an increase is the cost of pencils from one cent to five cents is not likely to jeopardize the financial stability of a publishing company even though a 400 percent increase is involved. Further, the possibility that some subscribers might reduce the number of their news services or discontinue the use of any news service if rates are increased is not sufficient to justify our disturbing the Examiner's finding. Due to the paucity of probative evidence introduced by the press, the extent to which curtailment of news services is likely to occur cannot be determined and it was incumbent on the [*569] press to show that the resultant curtailment would diminish news dissemination to a significant degree.

9. The press parts argue, however, that the Examiner erroneously ignored "uncontroverted and unimpeached" testimony of expert economic witnesses [**11] that the news services would loss substantial numbers of customers if they attempted to pass the increase in communications costs on to their subscribers. We find no basis for this contention. On the contrary, the Examiner discussed the testimony and pointed out that it failed to take into account several relevant considerations and was therefore "incompetent to support a conclusion that elimination of press rates will in fact affect the widespread dissemination of news." Furthermore, the Examiner took note of countervailing evidence which outweighed the testimony of the said witnesses. For example, despite increases in subscription charges over the years due to rising operating expenses other than the cost of wire services, UPI and The Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service n3 have experienced increases in the number of subscribers; and Field Enterprises, Inc. has suffered no significant loss of subscribers. Also in determining the potential impact upon subscribers to the services of AP and UPI he properly accorded decisional significance to the program undertaken by each of these services for conversion from telegraph to voice grade channels which will be subdivided [**12] into telegraph channel. n4 As the Examiner stated, once these conversion programs are completed, elimination of press rates for telegraphic service will have only a minimal impact upon AP and UPI. We conclude therefore that the Examiner properly analyzed and weighed the testimony of the press parties' witnesses and that he committed no error in his treatment of the said evidence.

n3 At the time this news service was initiated, the bulk of its subscribers were newspapers with circulation of over 100,000. However, as of May, 1968, a substantial percentage had circulations under 100,000 and 25 percent had circulations of less than 25,000. Apparently, increased charges do not necessarily discourage newspapers with small circulations from subscribing to news services or cause them to cancel their subscriptions, as the press parties argue.

n4 The Examiner found that UPI and AP will be able to derive from 18 to 22 telegraph channels from a voice grade channel.

10. We also reject the contention of the press that the Examiner erred in holding that the fact that each of the supplemental n5 news services represented in this proceeding is owned by a much larger corporate enterprise [**13] is relevant to a determination of whether preferential private line press rates and conditions are warranted. As noted by the Examiner, the increase in wire service costs would represent an insignificant part of the overall operating expenses of the parent companies, and the record clearly establishes the corporate parents could absorb the increase if they were so inclined. Whether the parent corporations would do so or would choose to get out of the business of operating a news service is a matter of conjecture. Rising costs have occurred from factors other than the charges for private telegraph lines, but the news services have continued to operate. From the record, it appears that the parent publishing companies continued to maintain the supplemental news services, despite operations at a loss in some instances, because there are benefits and advantages to the corporate [*570] parent which outweigh any existing disadvantages. We find no sufficient record support for the contention of the supplemental news services that an increase of approximately 1 percent in the overall annual operating expenses of the parent corporation which would result from elimination of the special press [**14] rates, even assuming that the increase cannot be passed on to subscribers, would suffice to change this balance and cause the parent corporation to eliminate or even drastically curtail its activities in gathering and disseminating the news. n6 Furthermore, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the supplemental news services "would seek to pass any increase on to their subscribers and there is no record evidence that would warrant a conclusion that increases of the magnitude here involved would substantially lessen the use of these services."

n5 "Supplemental" news services include all news services except Associated Press and United Press International.

n6 At the oral argument before the Commission, the following pertinent colloquy occurred (Tr. 1776-1777):

"Commissioner Cox. Is there testimony in the record by the Copley people that they would, in fact, close down a news service as such? I assume this service is of prime importance to the Copley Newspapers themselves and by providing a news service to other newspapers if they can get a contribution to the general overhead expense of this, they are reducing the overall services for Copley News.

"Mr. McCABE. The service [Copley News Service] is of great importance to the Copley News Papers [The Copley Press, Inc.]; otherwise, they would not put in a million dollars in subsidizing it as a loss operation for 15 years.

"The testimony is that the Copley News Service was set up on the assumption that eventually it would become self-sustaining and that if that assumption proves not to eventuate, steps will have to be taken. There is no commitment to shut down either the Copley News Service or any of the other supplemental news services here." [**15]

11. The press parties also complain that the Examiner failed to make findings with regard to the extension of press rates to private line service other than telegraph and telephotograph or with regard to specific requests for changes in particular private line regulations. n7 However, there was no need to discuss extensions of the current preferential rates since the press had failed to show that these current rates were justified. Manifestly, preferential rate treatment would not be extended to other private line services when the existing preferences were found not to be warranted. As to the allegation that the Examiner failed to make findings with regard to requests for changes in particular regulations, it is clear that such findings were unnecessary in the light of his general conclusion that "application to the press of the charges, regulations, practices and classifications currently applicable to non-press users... would not diminish, limit or impair the widespread dissemination of news in any manner inimicable (sic) to the public interest."

n7 Examples of specific changes advocated by the press are that the press be permitted to share leased time and capacity on leased circuits, that the press be permitted to lease bandwidths as needed instead of being required to lease specific types of channels for specific purposes that the press be allowed freely to interconnect channels leased from AT&T and Western Union with those of other carriers, that part-time use and clock-hour schedules be adopted for telephotograph service; and that special rates, consisting of a reduction of approximately 20% be adopted for private line telephone service. [**16]

12. In sum, we concur in and adopt the Examiner's conclusion that the evidence of record fails to establish that elimination of the current preferential press rates and conditions for private line service will adversely impair the widespread dissemination of the news. Consequently, no basis exists for prescribing or authorizing a specific classification for press users of private line telegraph and telephotograph services or other private line services.

13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the currently effective [*571] exception from the private line telegraph and telephotograph rates accorded to press users in the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted May 27, 1963, 34 FCC 1094, is terminated effective 50 days from the date of public release of this Decision.

14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That within 30 days after the release of this Decision the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and the Western Union Telegraph Co. shall each file with the Commission and print and keep open for public inspection such schedules and changes in schedules as are necessary to implement the findings and conclusions in this Decision.

15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That these proceedings in the [**17] Commission's Docket 15094 shall be deemed concluded by the filing of the schedules and changes of schedules, as herein directed.

16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the unopposed motions to correct the transcript of the oral argument before the Commission filed by American Newspaper Publishers Association, Associated Press, Copley Press, McGraw-Hill, Inc., P.A.M. News Corporation, and Twin Coast Newspapers, Inc. on January 30, 1970; and by United Press International, Inc. and Scripps-Howard Newspapers on February 2, 1970, ARE GRANTED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.

DISSENTBY: JOHNSON

DISSENT:

[*575] DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON

This is not an easy case. But it is important. And, I believe, it is wrong.

It involves special rates, "subsidies" if one prefers, for the use of telegraph facilities by the press.

I dislike subsidies, as a general rule. The marketplace is a pretty effective regulatory tool. Especially when it comes to strictly business enterprises, there is nothing wrong with bankruptcy -- it's the great American way. If demand lags, or a substitute product or service captures the market, or somebody can do it cheaper, there is seldom an [**18] economic rationale for perpetuating an operation that cannot earn its own way.

But we have taken a little different attitude towards subsidies (or socialized enterprises) that serve some overriding social purpose. We believe that society generally is benefited by free public school education, by public libraries, by museums and art galleries and national parks. If an economic rationale is necessary for such expenditures, it is possible. Our industrialized society is heavily dependent upon an educated and informed citizenry and labor force. These programs pay their way. (In a way that other subsidies may not, socially or economically: $700 million maritime subsidies, junk mail rates, the $200,000 and above average agricultural subsidies paid to the 250 largest farming units, tax provisions that permit millionaires to pay no taxes, etc.)

We have long encouraged the "communication" (transportation) of newspapers, magazines and books through special, subsidized mail rates. The special press rates now before us are based upon the same general philosophy: the entire society benefits from the distribution of information between newspapers by newswire; therefore, a reduction in [**19] rates that may encourage this distribution is desirable.

England long ago appreciated the importance of special press rates to the creation and maintenance of an informed people -- and an economic and military empire. Newswire copy could be sent to London for one penny per word, from anywhere in the world regardless of distance. The result was that, for purposes of information exchange, the entire Commonwealth was equally close to England. To the extent that power is measured in terms of access to information, London became one of the most powerful cities in the world.

It may or may not be the case that such an international policy would make sense for the United States today. That is not really the point. The point is that it is tragic for the United States that the Federal Communications Commission is seemingly incapable of exercising equivalent imagination, creativity and flexibility in understanding the implications of its rate-making decisions on the social, economic and political face of this nation.

In this proceeding the Commission concludes that the wider dissemination of the news will not be harmed if press communications users are forced to give up certain preferential [**20] rates they have heretofore enjoyed. I dissent to this finding and believe the Commission has both misread the evidence in this case and failed fully to develop the evidentiary implications of its action.

[*576] The history of this proceeding has been detailed in the Initial Decision and the Commission's Final Decision and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the Commission has now four times concluded that the press is not entitled to preferential rates. By its action, the Commission eliminates certain types of services and certain lower rates. Press users will have to pay regular commercial rates for private line telegraph and telephotograph services. The Commission's conclusion to remove the press rate advantages is premised on the belief that no significant adverse consequences will flow from the rate increases. I disagree with the Commission's final decision in this case for several reasons.

First, the majority suggests that the press parties have not proved that wide-spread distribution of the news will be adversely affected by this decision, and thus the Commission's responsibility to evaluate the impact of raising newswire rates has been discharged. I find [**21] this unsatisfactory. If there are infirmities in the case the press parties made, and there is lingering doubt as to the true effect of these rate changes, the Commission staff should have been directed to conduct their own analysis of the market. This, I believe, we failed to do. Often the Commission can and must rely on the abilities of the parties appearing before it. But in a matter as important to overall Commission goals in communications as assuring that there are no barriers to the free flow of news in this nation, I believe the Commission should have done its best to insure that a full record was made in this case. Such an effort would have included the staff presentation of a direct analytical case.

Secondly, I believe that the Commission conclusion that no adverse effects will flow from the rise in press rates is wrong, based on the record now before us.

There will be some effect upon the Associated Press and United Press International, although I concede that it will not be great. Apparently these organizations are now changing over to new services and newer technologies which will offset many of the increases. (Transcript, pp. 1794, 1807.) I am also unconvinced [**22] that preferential rates, if they are in fact out of line with other private line rates, should be applied to services which exist primarily to bring information to businessmen on commodity markets, etc., where the direct effect on distribution of news through the mass media appears minimal.

But I am concerned with the impact that these increases may have on so-called supplemental news services -- services such as the Copley News Service, Chicago Daily News/Suntimes News Service, and the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service. These supplemental news services exist to provide wider distribution of the news reporting activities of the participating newspapers. Smaller papers can make use of the product of these larger news gathering organizations, often paying little more than the marginal cost of distributing the printed material to them -- the communications costs. There are millions of readers of small-town papers around the country who are much better informed today because of the availability of these services to their newspapers at low cost. It is this dissemination of news which may be badly damaged by the Commission's decision. Higher communications costs may [**23] often mean that these supplemental services [*577] will not be used by present marginal subscribers, and Americans will therefore be deprived of information they may well need as informed citizens.

The majority suggests that because of the great resources of the parent corporations of these supplemental news services, any increases will in fact be de minimis in the total business operations of the corporations, will not be passed on to customers, and therefore will not affect the offer of services. This seems to me a specious argument, ignoring the marginal economic analysis which businessmen use in determining whether to continue the supply of a particular product line. In making such a judgment, the focus must be on the costs and revenue of the subsidiary, not the vitality of the corporation as a whole. Many supplemental news services are now operating at losses -- making them prime candidates for elimination in rational profit making determinations by business managers. I believe the Commission ignored this possibility by misreading the way in which business decisions are made. In fact, the majority's analysis and predictions suggest the contrary of its conclusions. If the great [**24] resources of the news service parent corporations mean that there will be no curtailment of the supplemental news services, this must mean that there is very high elasticity in the demand for these supplemental services -- since the news service managers are forced to carry them at losses rather than raise the services' prices.

Finally, the circumstances of this case suggest why the Commission should have been particularly careful about the effect of its decision on the supplemental news services. These services exist in competition with AP and UPI, which dominate the news-gathering and distribution market for national and international news. The effect of this decision will raise rates for both AP and UPI as well as the supplemental services. AP and UPI will be able to avoid a large measure of these increases because of the magnitude of their requirements and the newer, low cost technologies becoming available to meet these requirements. Supplemental news services will not be able to use these newer technologies advantageously and will have to bear the full brunt of the increases. The new result of this decision will be to enhance the position of AP and UPI vis-a-vis the competing [**25] supplemental services.

I do not pretend to know -- based on the record before me -- the precise rate levels that are most appropriate for all the various services involved. We do not know as much as we might about the correlation between communications costs and usage. Perhaps even greater subsidies would be warranted for remote, small town papers. The point is that the Commission has not given as much attention to these issues as I believe warranted.

For these reasons, any my fear that the overall level and degree of competition in news gathering and news distribution will probably decline, I dissent to the Commission's decision.

APPENDIX:

APPENDIX

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF ADVANCE NEWS SERVICE TO THE INITIAL DECISION

Exception No.	Ruling
1	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5 and 8 of this decision.
2	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision.
3	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 8 of this decision.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied on the ground that the decisional significance of the ruling excepted to has not been shown. The exception does not specify any evidence ignored by the Examiner which might have affected the outcome of the case. As to burden of proof, no error was committed by the Examiner.
2	Denied as not decisionally significant.
3	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 10 of this decision.
4, 12	Denied. The Examiner considered the material and relevant evidence concerning the matters raised by the exceptions, and his findings with respect thereto are supported by the record; the additional findings and discussion requested are not decisionally significant.
5, 16	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5, 8, 9, and 10.
6	Denied. The program services utilized by the broadcast industry are different from the private line services used by the press. Press type services are offered to both the press and the broadcast industry on the same terms.
7, 11	Denied. The finding and conclusion of the Examiner are supported by the record. In any event, the statements are not decisionally significant.
8, 9	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5 and 6 of this decision.
10	Denied. The Examiner's findings are adequately supported by the evidence of record.
13, 14	Denied. The conclusions of the Examiner has supported by the evidence of record and are correct.
15	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5, 6, 8, and 10 of this decision.
17 and 18	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 11 of this decision.
19	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 7 of this decision.
20	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 10 of this decision.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF ASSOCIATED PRESS TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1 and 2	Denied. The Examiner made the relevant and material findings which are supported by the evidence of record; the additional findings requested are not decisionally significant.
3	Denied as not decisionally significant. The fact that AP was able to expand its newswire services under the Telpak A rates clearly does not necessitate a conclusion that application of commercial rates and conditions for private line service to AP will decrease news dissemination. Further, in view of AP's conversion to multiplexed data channels, the elimination of the press tariff will have only a minimal effect on the two major news services, AP and United Press International.
4	Denied. As noted above, elimination of the preferential press rates and conditions will have only a minimal effect on AP. While AP's multiplex conversion program will not affect AP's telephotograph operation, the increase in communication costs for such programs which elimination of the press tariff would cause would be only approximately $104,000 per year. This amount when compared to AP's total expenses is insignificant. See also pars. 5, 6, 8, and 11 of this decision.
5	Denied for the reasons stated in the decision as a whole.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF COPLEY PRESS, INC. TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied as not of decisional significance and for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision.
2	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision.
3	Denied. The Examiner considered the material and relevant evidence concerning the matters raised by the exceptions, and his findings with respect thereto are supported by the record. To the extent that the requested findings are in-consistent therewith they have no sufficient record support, and the remaining findings requested are not decisionally significant. See also pars. 5, 6, 8, and 10 of this decision.
4	Denied. Loss of press rates and conditions for private telegraph service, in view of AP's and UPI's multiplex conversion programs, will have little effect on the rates charged subscribers of these two wire services. If the increase for telephotograph service were passed on by UPI to its subscribers, the increase would amount to approximately 2 percent of current rates charged by UPI. This increase is far lower than prior increases made by UPI in recent years because of other increased costs, while UPI's customers were increasing from 3,700 in 1963 to 4,284 in 1968.
5	Denied as not decisionally significant.
6	Denied. The Examiner's findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the record; the inconsistent findings and conclusions requested have no sufficient record support. Denied also for the reasons stated in pars. 8, 9, 10, and 12, of this decision and in the Ruling on Exception 4.
7	Denied for the reasons stated in the decision as a whole.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF McGRAW-HILL, INC. TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5, 6, and 11 of this decision.
2 and 3	Denied as not of decisional significance.
4	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 11 of this decision. Further, the Examiner's conclusions are adequately supported by the record.
5	Denied for the reasons stated in this decision as a whole.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF @P.A.M. NEWS CORPORATION AND TWIN COAST NEWSPAPERS, INC. TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1, 2, 4, and 5	Denied as not of decisional significance.
3	Denied for the reason stated in par. 8 of this decision. Also, despite the rate increases mentioned in the exception, the number of CNS subscribers increased from 320 in August 1966 to 423 in August 1968.
6	Denied. In view of the failure of P.A.M. and Twin Coast to show that elimination of press rates and conditions would adversely affect the widespread dissemination of news, the exception must be regarded as not of decisional significance.
7	Denied as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision.
8	Denied for the reasons stated in the decision as a whole.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF FAIRCHILD PUBLICATIONS, INC. TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied as not decisionally significant and for the reasons stated in pars. 5 and 6 of this decision.
2 and 3	Denied for the reasons stated in the decision as a whole.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF FIELD ENTERPRISES, INC. TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied as not in compliance with Sec. 1.277(a) of the Rules.
2	Denied as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF LOS ANGELES TIMES/WASHINGTON POST NEWS SERVICE TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1, 2, 4, and 6	Denied as not decisionally significant.
3	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 10 of this decision.
5	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5, 6, and 8 of this decision, and also because the facts which the Examiner allegedly erred in not finding are not decisionally significant.
7	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 9 of this decision.
8	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8, 9, and 10 of this decision, and also because the Examiner's findings is adequately supported by the record.
9	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 8 of this decision, and also because the exception is without decisional significance.
10	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 8 and 10 of this decision, and also because the Examiner's conclusions to which exception is taken are adequately supported by the record.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied. In view of AP and UPI's conversion to multiplexed data circuits, the elimination of the special press rates and conditions would only minimally affect the broadcast industry.
2	Denied as not decisionally significant.
1	(Exception to decision conclusions). Denied for reasons stated in pars. 8 and 12 of this and in the Ruling to Exception No. 1, above.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS OF UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SECRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPERS TO THE INITIAL DECISION
1	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 10 of this decision.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15(b), 16, 22, 23, and 24,	Denied as not decisionally significant in light of the discussion, findings and conclusions of the Examiner and in this decision.
3	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 8 of this decision.
10	Denied for the reasons stated in pars. 5, 6, and 8. Also, the amount that UPI's telephotograph rates will be increased when press rates and conditions are eliminated is insignificant when compared with UPI's total revenues and expenses.
11	Denied. The Examiner's statement is correct if the increase for telephotograph service were passed on to all telephotograph subscribers. Whether UPI would elect this course or some other, such as absorbing the increase, is a matter of conjecture. However, the Examiner's statement that if the increase were passed on to all of UPI's domestic subscribers the rate increase would be about 2 percent is correct.
12, 15 (a) and (c).	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 8 of this decision.
13	Granted and the finding is corrected accordingly.
17	Denied for the reasons stated in par. 9 of this decision.
18 (a) to (i)	Denied. The basic issue in this proceeding is whether application to the press of the commercial private line rates and conditions would, or does, significantly impair the widespread dissemination of the news. Since the press parties have not shown this to be so, the additional discussion and findings requested with respect to a desire for special provisions and conditions for the press have no decisional significance.
19	Denied. The Examiner's findings are adequately supported by the record.
20	Denied. The findings in par. 66 are clearly relevant and material to Issue C of this proceeding.
21	Denied. The Examiner's conclusions are adequately supported by the record.
25, 26	Denied. The Examiner's conclusion is adequately supported by the record. UPI has not shown that the increase in telephotograph charges would significantly impair widespread news dissemination.
27	Denied for reasons stated in pars. 5, 6, and 8 of this decision.
28, 29, 30, and 31.	Denied for the reasons stated in the decision as a whole.

[**26]