that we had to urge the owners of already existing VHF stations to buy into the UHF market. Am I correct on that? Mr. ROSENBLUM. I believe you are referring to the period when they relaxed the ownership rules to allow that. Senator PASTORE. That is right. We had to do it deliberately in order to enhance UHF. Even today there are a lot of UHF licenses that have been picked up that haven't been placed in operation. It is not an easy thing. But when you come into the 50 top markets, you are talking about big business. Senator BAKER. Let me ask an unrelated question, if I may, just out of curiosity. This relates to the fulfillment of the opportunity of UHF in the future and the fact that many many UHF channels are not now assigned. When you get this 3-megawatt transmitter that you are going to buy, what will you do with the 1-megawatt transmitters? Will you try to find somebody who is putting up another station and sell it to them? Mr. BLOCK. As a matter of fact, the two 60's side by side are the way to go to 120 and that gives you redundancy, the engineers say, so you can use them. So the 30, we went from 30 to 60 and it was the same transmitter in two instances. So we have been able to add to them. The cost of adding to them, transmission line and new antenna, is over a half million dollars, with a 1,000-foot tower; a great expense. Senator BAKER. But you aren't going to be selling the transmitters? Mr. BLOCK. No; but there is a market for that. Senator BAKER. What I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, is that I look forward some day when, largely due to your efforts and that of the Committee, we may see a network of community television stations like we have a network of community radio stations. They are far less expensive and far less difficult to operate than the very large ones. Thank you. Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Block. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. BLOCK, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, KAISER BROADCASTING CORP. My name is Richard C. Block. I am Vice President and General Manager of Kaiser Broadcasting Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaiser Industries Corporation. I have requested an opportunity to appear before you to express our views in support of S. 2004. Our approach to this subject is greatly influenced, of course, by our very substantial stake in broadcasting generally and in UHF television in particular. In addition to three radio stations, Kaiser Broadcasting owns or has interests in six UHF television stations: WKBD-TV, Channel 50, Detroit, Michigan WKBS-TV, Channel 48, Burlington, New Jersey KBSC-TV, Channel 52, Corona, California This Committee needs no introduction from me to the prospects and problems of UHF television. It is largely because of your vision and your effort, particularly in the enactment of the All Channel Receiver legislation, that this country is in position to make full use of the UHF channels allocated to television. I mean no disrespect, however, when I stress that the goals of the All Channel legislation cannot be achieved by Government alone. The success of CHF depends as well upon the willingness and ability of private citizens and companies to make very large investments of money, time, hard work and imagination. At Kaiser, we have been investing a great deal of that money and hard work, and we hope that we have been displaying the imagination that is needed. Between 1957 and 1964, Kaiser operated VHF Station KHVH-TV, Honolulu, and a companion radio station. I was the manager of those stations. In 1964, the Hawaiian stations were sold, for the express purpose of concentrating our attention and resources on the development of UHF television stations. Between 1962 and 1964, we applied for and received permits to construct four such stations. In 1966 and 1967, we received FCC permission to acquire the permits for two additional stations, in association with other companies. WKBDTV, Detroit began operation on January 10, 1965; WKBS-TV, which serves the Burlington, New Jersey-Philadelphia area, began operation on September 1, 1965; KBSC-TV, which serves the Corona-Los Angeles area, began operation on June 30, 1966; WKBG-TV, which serves the Cambridge-Boston area, began operation on December 21, 1966; and-finally-KBHK-TV, San Francisco, and WKBF-TV, Cleveland, began operation on January 2 and January 19, 1968, respectively. None of these stations was acquired as a going concern. All were built from the ground up. None is affiliated with a national television network. All are independent stations, dependent upon their own programming resources. We do not underestimate the size of the task we have undertaken. UHF television is still relatively new to most people, and has to prove itself over and over again to advertisers, program suppliers, set manufacturers and-above all-to viewers. Independent television stations must not only purchase or produce all of their programming-unlike the network affiliates, which typically obtain up to half of their schedules from the national networks-but must also overcome the truly massive habitual loyalty of most viewers to network program service. When you take on both of these challenges at once, you are really adventuring. In January, 1965, when we started, the water was very cold, and-although there were plenty of talkers-almost no one was willing to dive in. We took the plunge and have been swimming ever since. We did not expect success to be instantaneous, and it hasn't been. We have made our share of mistakesoften because the only way a pioneering venture can learn is by making mistakes. For example, in the past two years, we commenced substantial prime time news programs at four of our stations at a time when a great many operators of independent VHF stations have not thought it feasible to undertake programming of this kind. We found that we had bitten off more than we could chew, and have had to retrench to some degree-although we still have very substantial prime time news programs at three of the four stations and are planning to commence such a program at another station. We are gradually learning how independent UHF stations can perform a vital news function. In general, we think we have learned and are learning how to produce an independent UHF service which is worthwhile in human terms and can be sustained commercially. Our Detroit station, for example, now attracts reported audiences which are consistently comparable to, or larger than, those of the independent VHF station with which it competes. This learning, however, comes at a high price. Our cumulative losses at this point run into millions of dollars and our net investment is considerably larger. No single Kaiser television station has yet produced a profit on a full-year basis. While we are encouraged about the future, the venture has taken and still takes a great deal of patience, fortitude and vision on the part of our officers, directors and stockholders. What has all of this to do with S. 2004? As I understand the matter, when any of our licenses comes up for renewal, the present law exposes us automatically to the risk that a competing application will be filed, and that even if we have performed in accordance with our license obligations and all of the rules and policies of the FCC-the Commission may still withdraw our license if it decides after a hearing that the public would be better served by a new licensee. S. 2004 would change that procedure and allow the Commission to consider new applicants only if it had first decided that we were not entitled to a renewal. We believe that such a procedure would be a good deal fairer and more just to us and others like us and equally important-would better serve the public. When we applied for our first four UHF permits, no one was interested in competing for them, and the Commission gave every indication of being delighted to grant them to us. Today the situation is different. I have no doubt that many would be interested in obtaining the UHF licenses we hold, if they could do so for the relatively minimal costs of preparing an application and fighting a comparative hearing. And I can think of reasons why someone might think such a hearing could be won. It would be easy, for example, for a newcomer to assert that he could do a better job of serving the public. If we knew when we started what we know now, we could have done a better job, and the learning process is never over. Moreover, we are a multiple owner of stations, and are owned by a large corporation with other interests. While no one worried much about such matters when we started, there are people who seem to think now that it is dangerous to have such companies as broadcast licensees. If you disregard the money and effort we have invested, the risks we have taken and the record we have made, you can make out a theoretical case for the proposition that others might be superior. And, although I'm not a lawyer, I'm told that the Commission's recent pronouncement in the so-called WHDH case suggest that it will disregard a licensee's past record-when others file for his facilities at renewal time-unless the Commission finds his record to be "outstanding". I take a good deal of pride in the record of our stations during the last four and one-half years. I am proud that we chose to commit ourselves to prime time news while our stations were growing, instead of waiting until they were returning substantial profits. I am proud of the imagination our stations have displayed in using their unique strengths to perform public service. If you will permit me to dwell for a minute on an example, WKBF-TV, Cleveland, has a children's program featuring "Captain Cleveland" and his dummy "Clem". Most stations have a program of this general kind. What makes this one special is that as a result of the station's initiative Cleveland's Mayor Carl Stokes was a regular guest (until the recent commencement of his campaign for re-election), talking to Clem and the area's youngsters in a way that hasn't been seen or heard since Mayor Laguardia read the comics to New York City youngsters many years ago. I have no way of knowing, however, whether examples of this kind would make the Commission think our record "outstanding". And I suggest to you that our right to continue to hold our licenses shouldn't depend upon any such subjective judgment. We have no objection to regulation generally. We think we understand our legal obligations and we try to fulfill them. If our stations fail to perform adequately or misbehave, we expect to be disciplined. And I would add that we have generally found the Commission and its staff to be reasonable, fair and affirmatively helpful. It is not reasonable or fair, however, to subject a venture such as ours to a hazard-on top of all the others it faces-that its investment will be largely extinguished unless it is able to convince the Commission (whose personnel and policies change from year to year) that its performance has been "outstanding". In the final analysis, we view our venture as a kind of partnership with the Government, which makes the frequencies available to us in exchange for the service we can render. The partnership will not work at all if one of its members is constantly threatening to withdraw-not because the venture is failing, but because it has a notion it can do better with someone else. Companies such as ours simply could not and can not continue to pour resources and energy into broadcasting on any such basis. We urge that the public we serve and the public served by broadcasting generally will be far better served if S. 2004 is adopted. Senator PASTORE. Mr. Kenneth Harwood, dean, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa. STATEMENT OF KENNETH HARWOOD, DEAN, SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND THEATER, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Senator PASTORE. We are very pleased and honored to have you, Dean. Mr. HARWOOD. Thank you, sir. I am grateful to be able to be here. I will restrict my remarks to a very few minutes, knowing your limitations on time. I beg your indulgence to permit me to proceed without a written statement, since I just returned from London. Senator PASTORE. Yes; we like people who speak from the heart. Mr. HARWOOD. Thank you very much. My name is Kenneth Harwood, and I am professor of communications and theater, Temple University, and dean of the school of communications and theater in that institution. I speak today not however as a representative of the institution, but simply as a teacher and student of broadcasting. Two points only are on my agenda and they are both to the question of why S. 2004 is better than WHDH. I favor S. 2004 strongly and deeply. The two points relate to the field in which I am principally engaged, education. These points relate in particular to the intellectual and cultural developments of broadcasting for the benefit of the audiences. The two points are simply these: First, I believe under S. 2004 it will be better possible than under WHDH to help to develop professional people and advanced knowledge of broadcasting. I will go into the reason for that in a moment. Second, under S. 2004 instead of WHDH it will be better possible to promote firms that are strong enough to develop new programs and new program ideas through practical action and not merely speculation. Those are the two points, sir, I wished to present. As for the first, on developing advanced thinking and research, my reason of course for coming to you without a written statement is that I was away in London where Temple University School of Communications and Theater has a graduate seminar on broadcasting and other media of mass communication in Britain. One of the issues there this summer has been whether or not there should be a study of television and radio broadcasting introduced at some of the major universities in England. To this date they have not done so. A proposal for the development of broadcasting studies at the University of Sussex was recently turned down and it was turned down in an atmosphere that is very like the present one here with respect to broadcasting, unless something like S. 2004 is put into effect. What do I mean? I mean simply this: That about 2 years ago the Postmaster General, who is in charge of broadcasting, and the com mittee that is in charge of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, called for bidders to come to say what they might do better than what was being done in the commercial television of England. There was a changeover of several of the major companies there in England from those who had been broadcasting to new companies. Just this past Sunday in the London Times there was a major review of what had happened to those new companies since the time when they made their statements and came to have the franchises that were given to them. The general result as presented by the Times is one of lost expectations. There have been changes in circumstances, changes in personnel both in Government and the companies which made whatever decisions seemed best at the time when the franchises were granted far less attractive to the writer in the Times at any rate as set down this past Sunday. It is against a background of such uncertainty and let's say lost expectations that the nondevelopment of broadcasting studies and the professionals who will come out of them, probably occurred at the University of Sussex. Had there been strong commercial broadcasting companies who had the prospect of years of service to the public they would have been much more ready to support educational institutions of higher learning in study and research of broadcasting than the present situation permitted them to do. Now in the United States it is quite otherwise. There are dozens upon dozens of broadcasting companies, most of them very well established in the field, that have provided scholarships and research grants and other forms of direct support for the development of personnel and new information about broadcasting that should in the long run be to the benefit of the public, because the public will get the better programs that result from that work. In the United States it is not just one college like Sussex that has serious and complete studies in this field, there are more than 150 offering degrees, and 20 of them offering up to a doctoral-level studies. This depends in some measure, although not completely certainly, on the support and actual generosity by way of gifts of commercial stations and the industry at large. I am afraid that that would be minimized if something like S. 2004 were not put into effect. The industry jointly as well as individual stations has done very well. For example, each year the National Association of Broadcasters provides on competitive open application research grants, modest in size, about $1,000 each, but a number of them and enough of them to really stimulate some serious thinking and research in this field that I am afraid would not be encouraged as much if stations were weak, unable to support their trade association or unable to make direct donations to universities and colleges. There is then a long-term importance resulting in benefits to the listeners and the viewers in having financially strong companies that are by and large both more willing and more able to support advanced teaching and research in the field of broadcasting than are those companies just as a matter of simple reasoning that know they are in business only for a very short time. That is point 1. Point 2 is related to this in its reasoning. The bill would help to |