Public Television Hearings
Behind the chairman's desk.
We believe the president of ABC will be the first witness that will be announced by Senator Breaux our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Leonard de golden skin president American Broadcasting Company. A pleasure to have you know I missed an old isn't I should be here Mr. Chairman. You might proceed.
Mr. Chairman I deeply appreciate your courtesy in extending an invitation to appear before you to present my views and the thoughts on Senate Bell 11 60. The proposed public television Act of 1967. At the outset of these relatively brief remarks permit me to point out as a basic premise that ABC has always approved and favored the establishment of a strong and vibrant noncommercial educational television system national in scope.
ABC has consistently recommended an expansion of such a system through wider public and private financial support. And through the application of the latest scientific advances in mass communications particularly in the use of a domestic communications satellite system with certain reservations which I will outline later. ABC also favors commercial network cooperation with educational television to ensure its combination as a truly nationwide operation. Specifically as to Senator Bell Levon 60. ABC supports the proposal for an increase program of federal grants for construction of noncommercial broadcasting facilities for the authorization by the Congress of a study of instructional television and its relationship to educational television and for the establishment of a nonprofit corporation for public television to assist Educational Television and Radio Program Operations.
In short ABC endorses the principles of the bill before you and would be most willing now and in the future to cooperate in whatever way we can to attain its goals. We fully realize that as presently drafted the bill represents only a start in the right direction. And that further study by all interested parties will be required before ultimate solutions can be reached as to operation and long term financing. In my opinion any worthwhile discussion of an effective national educational television system must relate obvious SATB to interconnected lives and immediate communications between individual educational stations. I fully realize that many interested parties hold that such interconnected facilities are not necessarily a major prerequisite for the initial creation of an educational television system. They contend quite properly. That live transmission is not essential for instructional programs that it is not necessary to reach Let us say a course in physics at the same time across the nation. They are primarily concerned with the establishment of local educational television stations which could carry such programmes. And I do not argue with their valid proposals. But it seems to me that in discussing the formation of a truly national system for educational purposes interconnected communications between educational television stations is going to be required sooner or later. If such a system is to be truly a national entity and consequently I would urge that it would be sooner than later. In addition interconnection could serve as an instrument of getting educational programs to local stations who in turn could schedule those programs whenever they desired. Until recently the creation of such an interconnected educational communication system was financially impossible on a regular basis. Without large federal or private monies. Educational Television income simply could not afford it.
A few educational television stations on the Atlantic seaboard link their stations together for a few programs but a nationwide permanent network was far beyond their resources. Indeed it was utterly impossible for attainment. A breakthrough in this educational impasse occurred rather dramatically when scientific progress clearly demonstrated the worth. And potential of synchronous communication satellite transmission of television and radio programs. I hope you will forgive my pride in recalling that ABC in September 1965 was the first broadcasting company to apply formally to the FCC for permission to launch and elaborate a domestic satellite system for transmission of television and radio programs to network stations and continental United States Alaska Hawaii and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In making that application. ABC in full recognition. Of the benefit of satellite transmission to educational stations offered to make a channel available free of charge to the National Educational Network. This offer was highly praised as public service at its highest. By John F. White president of National Educational Television and by all the educational television station operators across the nation. As they pointed out such a proposal would free educational television from the financially impossible cost of a landline interconnections and would provide any TV with a truly national educational television system. Since our original proposal ABC has constantly advocated that in any domestic satellite system either one operated by ABC or in a more likely dedicated system for broadcast purposes operated as a joint venture by the networks educational television should be given free use of such satellites for transmission of programs to their stations. I respectfully request this committee to look with favor upon that recommendation and I would further urge you to do all in your power to speed the necessary decisions attendant upon getting such a system in operation at the earliest possible moment. ABC is of the firm belief that the FCC is fully empowered to authorize non-government entities to construct and operate domestic satellite facilities to take care of their specialized domestic communication requirements. The present international communications satellites have proven conclusively that a domestic satellite system can work and work. Now we would hope that there would be no more delay.
Specifically asked of the bell before you for your consideration. Permit me to add these observations. First I believe the proposal for the federal share of up to 75 percent for construction costs of approved projects is an excellent one. It should do much to stimulate the development of educational broadcasting in places which are not now able to afford it. Second I do not have any particular feeling on whether the directors of the proposed Corporation for Public Television should be of any certain number like the 15 mentioned in the bill. I do think the directorship should be large enough to encompass both national. And local viewpoints and experience. I also think it might be wiser if some of the proposed directors were not all presidential appointees but instead were nominated to their positions by the local educational television stations. 3 As to Title 2 of the bell I wholeheartedly approve the federal grant of nine million dollars in the first year for the program producing and or contracting of new educational programs. This grant would in effect be in the nature of seed money and would serve as an appropriate start for the system. For while the bill under discussion wisely postpones future financing for further study the entire question of how that should be attained is of great interest and tremendous importance. I would not presume to tell you what the final answer will be as to that financing. Indeed further intense study of all aspects of the problem is required before that can occur. You have already heard from many individuals on that score and you will doubtlessly hear from many more.
All of whom will be sincerely and deeply interested and many of whom will have conflict in thoughts and opinions. A good deal of these opinions quite naturally will center around the question of federal financial participation in the system and the fundamental principle of educational freedom from government domination. I do not have to tell you that there is a widely held fear that federal financial support of educational television could lead in time to federal control but frankly while I do admit the possibility of that fear I am equally convinced that you also are aware of it and that adequate safeguards will be developed by the Congress to prevent its occurrence. I am also convinced that educational television has an a chance in the world of becoming the strong and independent system we all desire. Without considerable federal financing. ABC believes that one of the safeguards that can be developed is to have the money needed for Educational Television come from multiple sources from private donations and from broad based taxation as well as from appropriations provided by the Congress. As far as ABC is concerned we believe that there are considerable contributions that commercial broadcasting can and will make to assist educational television in voluntary to bear the full cost of domestic satellite transmission and permitting educational television to use the satellite free of charge to relay noncommercial programs to their stations. The commercial networks would not be making a miserly contribution. In fact the assistance to educational television would be considerable and would contribute greatly to the successful operation of an educational system. In that connection I would like to make one thing clear. Personally I am opposed to the blanket suggestion that the commercial networks contribute to edge of educational television. Their quote savings unquote which may be derived from domestic satellite transmission of programmes such a proposal is in effect a special tax or surcharge leveled soley against the commercial networks while exempting others messages or data transmitted by satellite. I believe this is unfair. However ABC would be willing as we have already informed the FCC to enter into voluntary contractual arrangements to donate quote a portion of any savings close quote to any TV or to the National Association of educational broadcasters for educational production purposes. We are willing to make a voluntary donation. We oppose a special tax or surcharge against us alone. For the same fundamental reason ABC opposes the suggestion of a tax on television sets to support the proposed educational television system. Such a system certainly isn't the greatest of public interest and will serve all of the public. If Educational Television is in the public interest it should be supported generally by the public. But against a tax on television receivers is a special tax levied against a smush by special commodity. And again we have policy. I do not contend that private contributions no matter how generous can in themselves support the proposed educational television system. There is urgent need for federal support both in the form of broad based and general taxation and by outright federal grants or appropriations. Gentleman ABC as I said at the start of these remarks is more than willing to help develop a successful educational television system. We would welcome any opportunity to participate in future discussions and studies to bring about a truly national educational television system.
Thank you for the excellent statement Mr. Golden.
You know workplace quite a bit of emphasis on a nationwide educational system. And I think you kind of pitched this to a satellite. Yes. Now what could you have.
Could you have exclusive reliance upon a satellite without having some other. Auxiliary or and Sillery.
Alternative. Of transmitting.
Well in our proposed plan of course we have in the event of a failure of one satellite the changeover to another as a standby to protect.
A national system. So in other words the auxiliary would be up in the upper tier space. Exactly. So there would be an immediate changeover.
In case of failure.
Now what would you say as to this question of subservience to the mother company for instance the public television corporation.
The Carnegie report was which you are familiar of course. Make places a tremendous amount of emphasis upon the option of the local station.
To either accept or reject. A program.
And the reason for that is obvious. To make the choice a local one. Now do you think that with this network a tie in which would be nationwide that the tendency there would be to make the local station. More subservient to the network or to the corporation.
I feel this.
I don't say it in the form of subserviency but I feel. That local stations cannot always afford the money necessary to develop research in the form of new educational types of programs. That is a central source. This new public corporation could develop research that would become available to these local stations in the form of programs that they think are experimental. Now the local station may in the first instance refuse it but other stations may accept it. As a consequence studies would be made as to the acceptance of those programs by the public and later these other stations that are refused in the first instance may accept it. But I look upon this national corporation as a form of stimulation as a form of helping these local stations do what they themselves cannot do.
Well I realize that but after all you feel you are knowledgeable and very knowledgeable from your background and experience on this whole matter of interconnection and reliance upon the interconnection. As a matter of fact I think that at one time and maybe even now you have been rather critical of the of the fact that you haven't had the same opportunity of exposure as the other two networks. That is true and you're Because you came into the feel last I mean that we can take official notice of that without debating the subject. And your argument in the main has been that.
Through this in this tying let's say with the with CBS and NBC that in a way you have in somewhat been precluded. That is true. And you are precluded because these broadcasting stations have to rely upon the network so to speak. Now you're developing here an idea and I mean I'm just trying to provoke your thinking on. Now I think you're actually here suggesting more or less. You see the same can of worms. The minute the minute you make the local station. So dependent upon the interconnection. I'm afraid that in time you will dissipate. And do. This element of free choice.
I don't think so I don't think you'll find that's true in in in commercial broadcasting I think you will always find your strengths and weaknesses on a local level. But I think your strong broadcasters develop their local public interest their local interest and do it extremely well even though they take the service of the network. As you know many of the stations preempt the prime time for their own local public service programs so that basically I think you'll find no difference in education although I don't know the educational field from math standpoint and I certainly don't speak as an authority in that respect sir. I'm merely saying that human beings are what they are you will find good stations and you will find poor ones. And I think the good ones will rise above. Anything that the networks may deliver for the preservation of the pope. The public interest locally. And they will show those programs and do a very effective job locally. There may be needs and an education I'm sure in certain areas of the country which don't relate themselves to other areas of the country and this is certainly going to be true if the man managing those particular stations are good man and realize what the public get was I realize that but would you admit this that that's fundamentally.
Where the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Commission took up the opposite view. I realize that one spoke more of a national hook up and the achievement of this national hook up of which you're speaking today and that was the Ford Foundation. Yes. And then of course the Carnegie Commission took the opposite view. They took the view that they should be developed more or less on the local choice that this matter of education should be left to the people at the grassroot level to determine what they would like to see and what they would like to see without having any nationwide program forced upon them. You say unless they found it necessary now the only thing I'm saying is once you develop an in a national hookup.
That's very expensive to maintain. And for some reason there's going to be some stress and some influence exerted. You seek to make it economically feasible. Which would mean of course in order to accomplish that there would have to be more reliance on the local station and the network. And I'm wondering I'm not disputing you will because as I said before you had tremendous experience in this field. But what I'm questioning at this point is whether or not we might not be very well getting away a little bit from this idea of ultimately leaving the choice.
To the local broadcast that we can say that he has the choice but through for economic reasons sometimes he may be denied that choice.
Right. I merely answer that I think the insofar as the locals educational stations are concerned I think that if they're strong.
They will exercise very sound judgment as to the programs they accept. And won't always have to use the network if they don't think it's feasible. Unfortunately the weak stations and the weekly manage stations might become quite subservient to the network.
And in that form and in that way public opinion locally would have to bring about change of management of that educational station I would think to make it stronger. To whom would you give the responsibility of the interconnection. While the why of the interconnect I think I would have to give it to the Corporation for Public In other words you would broaden that subsection e that I have been talking about Absolutely. Either YS I don't think this is practical. I don't know what could be the catalyst to carry it out if you didn't give it to that corporation.
Do you think that there would be.
A sufficient demand. Upon the education of television broadcasting stations that would dare. Justify. And fully employ the facilities of a nationwide interconnection system by the corporation.
I think in time yes. Mr. Chairman my feeling is there are great number of programmes coming your way. This is going to be a worldwide medium. There may be things that are taking place in different parts of the world where the interest may be specialized to be sure. And yet it's important for certain areas of this country to be aware of what's going on as it is happening to bring it in live. Perhaps. I can conceive of things coming out of United Nations that might not have a big audience. And yet from an educational standpoint it's highly desirable to carry throughout the country for a specialized audience maybe for educators themselves. I can conceive of many things that are happening in this world which is becoming smaller all the time. That we should make available. To the public and to the educators and the people that the educators wish to serve. Something that has the spontaneity of being able to deliver this event as it's happening so that they can determine whether they in turn want to pass it on to their respective surveyor's where they are serving.
Well now let me recapitulate just a little bit in other words you take the position that the desirable thing to do would be to develop a nationwide Indic connection system. Yes. And number two in that development you have no fear that this will in any way delude or imperil the freedom of choice on the part of the local broadcaster. Absolutely not.
All right Mr. Gold is and I want to thank you very much. Thank you.
And was the testimony of the winner of each golden sim concert on the ABC.
Well it goes right on in trouble already the.
Next witness is the present American National Association of Broadcasters.
Right you they proceed Mr. Chairman my name is Vincent was Alinsky. I am president of the National Association of Broadcasters. The National Association of Broadcasters in a B as a nonprofit organization of radio and television broadcasters. Whose membership included as of April 12 1967. Twenty two hundred thirty seven standard broadcast stations 1075 FM broadcast stations 513 television stations and all the national radio and television networks. We very much appreciate your courtesy in inviting us here today to present the views of the association on as 1 1 6 0 0 0 of the public television active 1067. Commercial broadcasters have had a long standing interest in what is referred to in the Communications Act. As noncommercial educational broadcasting. They have consistently supported educational broadcasting since its inception by donations of time money and equipment in all parts of the country. They have led drives to secure funds they have donated millions of dollars worth of equipment. At the time of the president's proposals which are incorporated in the bill presently under consideration we pledged to commercial broadcasting support as follows and I would quote We recognize that the public interest will be served by encouraging the development of more programs designed to appeal to specialized tastes and needs. Do this in noncommercial broadcasting will have the continued support of the commercial broadcasting industry. The subject before this committee is of major importance. It has a profound implication for American social and political life. The decisions made by this committee and ultimately by the Congress will establish the basic ground rules under which noncommercial television will operate. Thus the proposals should be carefully scrutinized analyzed and all the ramifications examined. Just as you are doing. S11 60 has focused attention on the role noncommercial broadcasting has to play in our society its ultimate objectives are appealing. We applaud the extension and expansion of grants for the construction of facilities as provided in Title 1. We warmly support the study of educational and instructional broadcasting provided in Title 3. In fact the board of directors of an AB at its last meeting. Contributed $15000 to the National Association of educational broadcasters to assist in such a study. With respect to the provisions of Title 2 however. Which establish and define the purposes of the nonprofit educational Broadcasting Corporation we have an important reservation namely the possible influence of government over the entire proposed noncommercial system. The broadcasters concern is as citizens as well as broadcasters. It is a concern we share with the Carnegie Commission. Its chairman Dr. Julian said this quote. The commission categorically affirmed that the Corporation for Public Television must be private and non governmental. That it must be insulated to the greatest possible degree from the threat of political control. And to quote. It is concerned we share with President Johnson in his message to the Congress the president said. Noncommercial television and radio in America even those supported by federal funds must be absolutely free from any federal government interference over programming. It is a concern we share with prominent individuals in the world of educational television and maybe has an honest and good Braith reservation that's S11 60. Does not adequately assure the insulation of this proposed new broadcasting system from the influence of government. Realism requires us to face two hard facts at the outset. First the bill provides that the controlling body will consist of a 15 man board of directors appointed by the president subject to Senate confirmation. Second if the Carnegie figures are accepted these individuals will be charged with spending money derived almost entirely from government tax revenues. Which would eventually amount to two hundred seventy million dollars a year. And even if that level is not reached expenditures by the corporation will be undoubtedly in the tens of millions. Up to now noncommercial television has been largely in the hands of states and cities or local groups. Control has been essentially local. And widely dispersed. S11 60 would change this pattern. Because of the dependence of local stations on a central authority for funds. It would be almost impossible for them to maintain their independence. The problem becomes doubly difficult when both the decision making body. And the funds administered by it are federally inspired. In this connection it should be noted. That the primary thrust of the bill under consideration is not toward the historical or traditional concept of educational or instructional broadcasting. But rather toward the development of a system of noncommercial broadcasting which is not necessarily related to either education or instruction in the academic sense. For example consider the Bible area of news and public affairs. The Carnegie Commission reserves some of its most glowing terms for the news and public affairs operations at invasions. It kind of place not only an extensive system of gathering the news covering best breaking news stories but also giving perspective and depth to the interpretation of the news. It also says programming of the news should grow. To encompass both fact and meaning both information and interpretation. It speaks of underwriting the production of documentaries. On subject of national concern and programs dealing on a national scale with public affairs or with news commentary. The possible dangers of government in approach influence in this most sensitive area are obvious insulation from the influence of government will not be accomplished by relying merely on our traditions or on the behavior of men of good will. The pressures of politics will inevitably increase the amount of government control not only over the corporation but also over stations. We should not really hope that this will not happen. We should make certain that it will not happen. An editorial in The Washington Post which has been a strong and enthusiastic supporter of noncommercial educational television expresses reservations similar to our own. It says. It seems to us. That there are two major principles that ought to guide Congress in its study of the administration's proposals. One is the need to keep public television from falling into the hands of governmental control. The other is to preserve local autonomy for the public and educational stations. But both of these needs to be achieved without sacrificing the prestige of the national organization or the quality of the programming it offers. End of quote. This proposal asks that one third of the directors of the corporation be elected regionally. By the stations that are affiliated with the corporation. We agree that the post proposal would dilute the chances of political tampering. We believe the proposal we are about to present is superior. Because it would virtually eliminate such a possibility. And maybe believes that a strong and vital noncommercial broadcasting system can be built on the solid foundation. Which has already been achieved for the present system of educational television. In 1062. When Congress was debating the same question how to support noncommercial television without making it a ward of the federal government a satisfactory method was devised. Funds were granted to each station to be used for the purpose of equipment and facilities. We propose that a somewhat comparable system be adopted to channel money not only for facilities but also for operations and programming. We propose one legislation to make available sufficient federal funds to create and support a viable noncommercial broadcasting system similar to that envisioned by S11 60 these funds would be dispersed through the states for distribution to the noncommercial stations to all noncommercial stations would be eligible but not required to join any nonprofit corporation. Each station would acquire with its membership voting privileges in the corporation. Member stations would elect members to a national board of directors. 3 each participating member. Would assign a percentage of the funds it receives to the corporation which in turn would disburse money in a manner contemplated by S11 60. We believe this approach has many virtues. First control is democratically based and decentralized. Maximum protection against the federal government interference of a programming sought by the president is assured. Second it is a logical extension of the already approved working concept developed by the Congress itself. The grant in aid principal. Third management and operation of the corporation is in the hands of experienced. Full time professional people who can collectively determine their programming needs. We submit that the job of developing an operating noncommercial broadcasting. Can be done more effectively by professionals in both education and television. The system that we propose would not result in altering the six congressional declarations of policy enunciated in section 3 9 6 of the bill. It is a recommendation designed to place control. At the grass roots level in the hands of individual stations. Who would make their own decisions about what sort of programming and distribution activities they would need. It bolsters the role to be played by local stations. And finally it would help assure. The separation of any noncommercial broadcasting system from government and influence. Thank you Mr Chairman for this opportunity of presenting the views.
Wow. Would you admit Mr was a nurse gave it the nun that the commercial television. Establishment in this nation has a very lucrative enterprise.
Is it not the commercial broadcasting. Yes very lucrative. And we do it in a television at least television here even radio. Well. I know a lot of radio broadcasters that don't make money. There are many more that are making a lot of money.
And you will admit that generally speaking that. Educational Television is in trouble. Yes or do you envision that it could become self-supporting.
No I without federal aid. No sir I did not suggest that I suggest federal aid. As far as I thought you would have us give it to the states. Yes I would come play to a similar organization but it would get back to have greater autonomy and local control in the individual stations. And then you suggest that they pay a premium to the mother corporation. Yes that's what I would envision for what I'm Opus. What's up for the for the purpose of. A program of development by. The mother corporation similar to that invasion in s 11 60 Well wouldn't it still be a money. Yes or. Yes or. No. What I mean would it be better what another way than I directly. In other words I'm saying.
In my judgments are that the make up in the administration or set up involved in the corporation can be as important as the source of the money. And I think that we get the dispersal. So this big of control to my suggested system plus the added guarantee of the separation of the governmental funds from the operating entity which you are have expressed concern about and who would determine the amount to be given to DAY TO DAY. I would say sir that. That this could be done on a number of proposed mechanisms I don't have any specific suggestion. To that. To give an answer to that question but I think that that would be something that could be easily readily taken care of.
And I'm sure that we could find similar.
Analogies in our present. Governmental structure.
Why he is still here why is this fear of the corporation of mall moment to the broadcasting stations it is to the networks all of the networks that come in here and in DOS did I understand you correctly Mr was in opposition to this bill.
No sir. I'm not in opposition to the bill in facts or I'm in support.
Of the bill and the objectives of the bill as an ad where the way it's written not the way it's written has. Only in the manner of selection of the board of directors for the public television corporation. And sir I would venture a small gas if I may that if there were a secret poll taken of operating educational stations that they would not be averse to the position I've just taken that who's taken I would venture a small gate. I guess that if there were a private poll taken of the operators of the educational television stations in the country that they would not be opposed to the suggestion that I've made.
In other words to show that I'm not really. I'm not opposed to non-carbon commercial television in fact I think this is wonderful suggestion and I hope it goes through. But I do think that there ought to be some more protections against government influence.
All right Mr. whiskey thank you thank you.
That was Vincent was a loose key president of the National Association of Broadcasters. The next winner is FCC Commissioner Robert E. Lee.
I don't wish to overwhelm you with numbers. But I brought a few doctors with me. And I'd like if I may introduce him.
You know Baz Carey has always been your friend.
To my right is not good we're not Cooper. Chief Bureau of mass communication state education department Albany New York. And he's chairman of the northeast region of our estimate. To his right is Mr. I have are part of our staff engineering staff.
And I. I take this opportunity to say before him and to the. To the world. That this is one of the few. Programs that I've seen developed by the FCC that originated with the FCC and not from outside requests or pressure this man developed.
What I'm going to to describe to my right here is is Dr. Robert L. Hilliard chief of our educational broadcasting branch for the FCC and helps me administer this committee and to my left here is Dr. Robert Shell's director for Educational Television for the state of Illinois. To his left is Louis Rhodes. Director of the national project for the improvement of TV instruction at the end here. And this is truly the only giant in this group. Of. John Culkin Society of Jesus. He's with Fordham University director of the communication center and has been a real spearhead in the development of this this new band in the interest of the time of the of the subcommittee on the other witnesses instead of reading in full the text of my testimony if it is agreeable with the chairman I will be pleased to request that the prepared testimony be entered in its entirety on the record and I will summarize some of the introductory and background material Without objection so ordered that.
Thank you very much I'd like to emphasize too that I'm speaking here today in my capacity as chairman of the Committee for the full development of the instructional television fix service and not necessarily representing the views of the FCC which this committee happens to endorse. I asked these men to come here because I think this is your first opportunity in these hearings to. Perhaps get a reaction from the very practical. Instructional individual leads man are all involved. On a day to day basis with instructing children for credit and and adults you know and. When we. When we originally set up the educational reservations we were more motivated in large. Extent to the need for instructional. To the people going for credit suddenly now this is all something different. I don't say this is bad. But we want to make here today a record of what the instructors of students think of this bill.
The instructional television fix service was established by the FCC in one thousand sixty three after the 1960 to eat TV facilities Act was passed.
This service is sometimes called the twenty five hundred mega cycle or perhaps megahertz system or by its initials i t FS it operates over the airways as a fixed point to point service and is primarily for the transmission of instructional programs to regularly enroll students in classrooms. Each receiving school needs a special receiving antenna and converter and the service therefore is not designed for use by the general public in the home. 31 31 channels are available in any given area of about a 20 mile radius and some communities have cooperated in their planning so that by proper siting of transmitters many more channels and a large number of users can be accommodated. Each applicant may apply for up to four channels and they operate simultaneously This is a great advantage for programs at one time instead of one. Any school then could receive 4 channels with 4 different programs at the same time. Tailor made to that school's needs. This system makes instructional programs available to school systems in communities with out eat TV broadcast service. But it is not necessarily a substitute for each TV because factors of terrain and distance prevent use of the i t f s in some few areas. I t f s is generally quite more economical than a broadcast TV station.
As of today April twenty six thousand nine hundred sixty seven the FCC has received one hundred twenty applications for three hundred and twenty nine channels. 35 systems with 51 channels are now in the air. Forty nine systems with one hundred seventy nine channels are under construction because of the growth of the I.T. FS and the actual and impending saturation in many metropolitan areas. The FCC in 1965 established this committee the National Committee for the full development of the instructional television FX service. This committee advises the FCC on problems and developments in the field. Provides information to potential and actual users and recently was authorized to review applications in individual communities and provide recommendations and comments to the FCC prior to the granting of a license.
Some eight hundred educators throughout the country are engaged in I.T. FS committee work on national regional state and local levels. We stress the local development of the service through the voluntary establishment of local subcommittees which plan for that community's use of the IDF estoppel you.
Will you explain that a little more in detail. From whence does this program emanate.
It would emanate from a a central source within a school district. You might for example have eight or 12 schools and what in this district and one would be a transmitting point. The others would receive line of sight. And it's a simple conversion on the road to go down to a C and how to get to the school by a close second on through the air through the air through the air.
Yes the this is over the air.
They had other words emanating point would be more or less like a broadcasting station right.
They would have studios.
It would be a close counterpart Yes and only the school itself could tie into it right. They'd have to have a special antenna for it a special antenna and a special receiver. But the cost as compared In other words if you were giving a cost in physics. And you had to give this let's say in full classrooms throughout the county itself. You could do it simultaneously. They could all hook in on it.
Yes not only that but you could transmit on 4 transmitters physics history English and French given out all to the same children at the same time at the same time to different classrooms.
That's right I mean a different price wrong would get the history lesson. Now the classroom would get the physics lesson right.
And so on and so forth that it works very well there are no technical problems anymore in regard to.
Now tell me how much of this is in use today.
I believe there are 51 systems on the air today and we have.
There are 51 channels on the air and that is 35 systems. Forty nine systems with one hundred seventy nine channels are under construction and we have a total of one hundred twenty applications for three hundred twenty nine channels. The oldest system was at was at playmates at the plain edge New York was an experimental item that must be six or seven years ago. It's still on the air and it works just now.
Well now according to this bill that we're considering it's in three titles in the last title has to do with instructional and educational desks.
And that's what you're directing you right off to that right where you are not entitled. Great.
Now is there anything in this bill maybe you're going to cover his Bob anyway. Yeah but I'm going to anticipate a little bit just to get this in proper context. Is there anything in this bill if it does come into being and isn't acted by the Congress setting up this cough aeration Willis in any way preclude or limit this system that you're talking about.
We think the language is perhaps not broad enough to make sure that this is covered.
And we are we are suggesting is going to develop that yes I say all right.
In regard to S11 60 the. The Committee for the full development of the instructional television FX service endorses the bill in general and endorses generally the comments of Chairman Hyde on behalf of the FCC as presented on April 11 in specific regard to Title 1 the I-T FS committee recognizes that Title 1 is for broadcast station purposes along the i t f s operates on the public airways in a broadcast manner and is a public resource which is regulated by the FCC. It is legally a point to point private service and is therefore technically regarded as a non broadcast service. We therefore are not suggesting here that the ITA FS be included under Title 1 for funding purposes.
However we would like to point out as we have in the description of the service that the I.T. FS is a very valuable contribution to education particularly in terms of flexibility. My local channels and local orientation and control it is only now beginning to move with great speed and local school administrations have shown surprisingly great interest in the service. The fact that in only three years we have received 110 applications for almost 300 channels with half of dollars in the last year alone indicates the greater growth as anticipated will put ita FS into a very important position indeed in American education.
We have how many would there be any objection.
In having those applications and said it in the record. Would there be any objection to that. Yes it would be very happy to do that. And would you also put in the wreckage day the places where this is in operation we have a table.
We estimate that the financial commitment of the currently existing applications for the construction of facilities along comes to about twenty two million dollars a projection considering the current rate girl indicates a need of some 100 million dollars in the next five years.
As with the TV station growth. If Congress considers the I-T f s as valuable to education as indications seem to indicate it is then apparent that the anticipated growth rate is conservative. Some experts in the field have suggested that some 12 to 15000 of the nation's 28000 school districts can enhance the quality of their education significantly through the use of the IDF. Our dollar growth estimate for the next five years is less than one twentieth of that number. So the implications for growth if Congress sees fit to aid that growth are tremendous for the progress of education. The I.T. FS has received some grants for facilities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and under the Higher Education Act of 1965 we recognize that these acts as other existing federal programs are not specifically designed to fund i t f s facilities. We recognize too. That many deserving programs come under these acts and that i t f s is only one of these many. In view of our belief that the instructional television fix service needs and deserve substantial support for the construction of facilities. We helped the Congress in its wisdom will provide adequate funding for as facilities under some appropriate legislation. Presumably after the study. We endorse the comment of the FCC that the public broadcasting corporation not be. Not be precluded from making available.
To us systems as appropriate programs that may cause to be produced mainly for each TV station use in specific reference to Title 3. We support the FCC recommendation for changing the language of section 3 a lot. Which I don't think I need read it's it's in the state now.
And let me get this straight Bob so that I can understand you clearly what you're actually saying is. That wherever you have this what you call it i t. F s. I t f s right. Wherever you have this i t f s in operation. You would want something in the law that would entitle them to some of the programs that the.
Well it was certainly nothing in the law to preclude them. From having the programs which we think they they should be available.
For. For one level where the next question I was going to ask you. Do you see anything in this legislation that precludes them from doing this.
All would you want it spelled out.
I think we would be very happy to see it's spelled out if not in the legislation and the report accompaniment.
If it was silent while I think we ought to consider that I mean if it doesn't come in the conflict with reference to Title 3 where they're going to make an investigation or a study of the whole matter. But what you're actually saying is there are many communities that have already been aided under the secondary education bill with reference to this. These facilities so that's been recognized by the government. And what you would want them to do where they made the choice or made the request that they would be entitled to the same the same advantages as the educational broadcasting stations that great Do I understand you correctly.
Yes that's correct is this right. I wonder if Dr. Cooper might like to explain right.
There is a preliminary provision for that now under title to under paragraph d of Paragraph 2 on page 15 of the act. If the library source is set up there these programs could be available to I.T. FS as well. I think this would deeply be appreciated by the instructional community.
Well let's take that very carefully day says to establish and maintain a library. And archives of noncommercial educational television or radio programs and related materials and develop public awareness. And disseminate information about.
Non commercial educational television or radio broadcasting by various means including the publication of a journal.
You think that that gives you the effect it gives them the authority lines 22 23 and 20 part of 24. I'm going to guess that the material on 50 suggests the materials will be there. OK then 24 goes on to indicate an additional thing that shall happen with additional materials. If the interpretation is correct.
Mr Sen them the materials will already exist for our archival and redistribution use of the commissioner's request was put these also be available to IDF systems.
But I think we ought to spell it out in the report that there be no i think of I think two if I may call attention to.
Two paragraphs be.
On page 15. Which reads to contract with or make grants to programme production entities. Individuals and selected noncommercial educational broadcast stations. That. Paragraph refers to non commercial broadcast stations. And technically I t f s is not a broadcast station. So I think it needs a little draftsmanship.
In addition. However to reflect the changes in section 3 a one which not take into consideration all forms and approaches in instructional television. We recommend the following revisions for Section 3 0 2. And I must say I'm not questioning. On these revisions. If you don't mind I feel I'm a little bit. I am I'm not an educator I had this group and I try to. Keep them going ahead but I am not the authority. That is representative. Number one. To assess the present state.
Of technological development. Including the i t f s. Or meeting important and identifiable educational needs. Number two. To project the potential of the instructional television fix service. And other telecommunications technologies to meet future educational needs and to assess the development of telecommunications appropriate for meeting those needs. Number three to give special emphasis in this study. To an investigation and an analysis of the present uses and future potentials of instructional television material. Number four to analyze interpret. And make recommendations for significantly improving the planning and preparation of instructional programmes for use on television and other media. Special emphasis should be given to the training of personnel. Improving facilities determining methods and procedures and correlating all known research and learning effectiveness achievable through the use of media materials. Number five. To make specific recommendations for funding instructional television fix services and other media which should be supported by the federal government. Number six to publish a comprehensive report both in private and for national distribution by radio television and stations. In conclusion. The Committee for the full development of the instructional television fix service agrees with others who have testified who believe that this proposed legislation S11 6 1 11 60 is among the more significant bills Congress has considered in its history in the interests of forwarding the general and specific education of all Americans. We appreciate the opportunity and the privilege of submitting to you today our endorsement of the bill and a clarification of the purposes potential and needs of the instructional television fixer.
But Bob why why doesn't Section 3 0 2 cover you. It is presently written.
Dr. Hillard can be more more specific than. THE CHAIRMAN We feel very strongly. The radio and television in their short life times clearly demonstrate that they can be.
The most effective. Resources we have. In affecting minds emotions of human beings. We feel that Title 3 as presently written. Does not take that fully into consideration. That title 3 is presently written. Leaves out. Some of the important aspects of radio and television in respect to education as a whole. We feel for example that even up to this point. In our short history using these medium instruction that radio and television have been used to reinforce. What has largely been a 19th century outmoded outdated education which marks most of formal education in this country today. We feel that any study. Should clearly determine the relationship of these media to education. So that education as a whole. Can change to take advantage of what these media have to offer and indeed to reflect. The impact. Of these media. As they have already had an impact in our general society and have not yet been fully recognized in education we feel for example if we are to use the prognostications the estimate. That. Well since you and I were in school. That there are some six times as much knowledge available in the world. And another estimate that well when my six year old son is my age. That some 95 percent. Of all knowledge in the world. Will have been learned. From this time until that time. Now this implies something great responsibility for all of us not only in terms of programs for these media or how they should be used but the full relationship of radio and television and all media to education. And this is in general why we feel that Title 3 is not adequate. I think that if we would turn back to the FCC recommendation for change in language. Of three old one some of this will be made clear. The recommendation of the FCC if I may be permitted to repeat it here. Suggests that the secretary of Health Education and Welfare is authorized to conduct directly or by contract and in consultation with other interested federal agencies a comprehensive study of and here we see much more than in the bill as written. A comprehensive study of instructional television and radio including broadcast close circuit instructional television fix services. And their relationship to each other and to instructional materials such as video tapes films discs computers and other educational materials or devices and such other aspects there as may be of assistance in determining what federal aid now that differs from whether federal aid is currently written. What federal aid to be provided for instructional Radio-TV and the form that aid should take and which may aid. The community's institutions or agencies in the terminal whether and to what extent such activity should be used. We feel that the bill is now written suggests that a study should be made as to whether. There should be funding. For instructional television. We feel that that has already been studied thoroughly by the government by. Much money from the Ford Foundation. And that the determined nation now is not whether it should be funded. But what form shuts such funding should take. I think some of our other members just like you like touching upon the sensitivities of Congress. Don't you think we ought to know first whether we ought to do it and then how much we ought to do.
Well in I mean how can you make it a foregone conclusion. That that is what should be done then the only thing remains how much you're going to do.
Well if if we determine I mean I don't want to debate this with you I know from where you said you have your problems where I said I have them.
But Mr. Chairman the Congress has already been funding instructor television instructional radio. And so we assume that it terminations has already been made that it's what I wanted to come under another program.
You see now here we're writing a television bill in a radio Bill. Has had to do with educational television but it's recognized in the Carnegie report that this whole matter of instructional television has to be for the study. Now you gentlemen come along in your profession to in your own field and you've been very much involved in one phase of instructional television before you get out of this room today. Maybe someone else will come up with a better idea who knows. You say so I don't think you want to begin the name systems.
I thought that when they say such study shall be comprehensive in nature.
That runs the whole gamut I think. And show cover particularly such items as the quality and content of existing programs and how they can be improved will let you. Is not you. It's an existing program. The financial factors involved.
In the use of instructional television in educational institutions. It isn't that you and your program. The relative advantages or disadvantages of using instructional television as compared with other media.
That's important. Are we reaching the student. As well. Through this media as we might by personal contact are we losing or are we gaining. That has to be determined.
This transcript is machine-generated and has not been corrected. It is likely there will be errors.
- Public Television Hearings
- Producing Organization
- WGBH Educational Foundation
- Contributing Organization
- WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
- AAPB ID
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-32r4xvs2).
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
Identifier: 67-0089-04-26-003 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Public Television Hearings,” WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 18, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_15-32r4xvs2.
- MLA: “Public Television Hearings.” WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 18, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_15-32r4xvs2>.
- APA: Public Television Hearings. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_15-32r4xvs2