The argument that the application of this amendment, designed to insure a fair distribution of broadcasting licenses, wave lengths, and station power, will result in injury to the broadcasting situation, particularly the listening public in the New York City area, is wholly unfounded. Those opposing this equalization clause, led by the Radio Corporation of America and its affiliated interests, persistently disseminate the false statement that the station power in all the other zones under the provisions of this amendment would be reduced to the power now allocated to the zone with the lowest power. The amendment directs no such thing; nobody wants that done, and surely not even the present commission would be foolish enough to so administer the provision. The amendment authorizes and directs an equalization between the zones and a fair and equitable allocation within each zone and a fair and equitable allocation within each zone in proportion to population. It is a perfectly fair and simple proposition.
As a matter of fact, the listeners in the highly congested areas are suffering more than anybody else. They can satisfactorily hear only a few of their very high-powered stations and no outside stations.
The matter of a fair and equitable allocation of broadcasting privileges throughout the country is not an "intricate and technical matter." It is a matter of national interest and right and involves a legislative policy. The amendment is not destructive but constructive. It does not undertake to tear down, but to improve and build up. To give the balance of the country outside New York City and Chicago an equal deal in radio does not involve an injury to the broadcasting situation in those cities.
The discrimination is not so much due to favoritism to cities or a section as it is due to class favoritism discrimination. What are the circumstances? We have in this country an iron-clad radio monopoly, according to the report and charge of the Federal Trade Commission in a complaint now pending. The monopoly has more than one-third of all the station power in the country. They have the choicest wave lengths. Together with the affiliated stations they have 327,000-watt power compared to 600,000 for all the balance of more than 600 stations.
The existing law divides the country into five zones by States. The first four zones are substantially equal in population, the zone I have the honor to represent being the largest of any of them. The fifth zone embraces the Pacific Coast and Mountain States, and although it has much less population than the other zones, yet it has nearly 50 per cent of the geographical area of the country, and in addition, that great section is divided by the Rocky Mountains, which constitute a serious static impediment.
We felt when we enacted the 1927 law that the fifth zone was entitled to as much consideration as the other four. So we treated them on an equal basis. Consequently, this amendment provides that there shall be an equal allocation between the different zones established in the act, and that there shall be a fair and equitable distribution among the States within a zone according to population. The zones are equal, but the States are unequal in population as well as area, and you could not apply the same yardstick to all the states. It is a simple proposition. It is workable. It is fair. It is American.
Take me directly to the Con argument from the Congressional Digest
For other articles related to this topic please go back to the FRC Documents Subdirectory by clicking on the button below.
Comments
or questions? e-mail messere
This page is maintained by Fritz Messere, Associate Professor @ SUNY Oswego