Evening star., 1932-09-06
BAR GROUP SCORES
RADIO Commission
Communications Committee
Says Decisions Are Too In
consistent for Use.

That the Federal Radio Commission
Is abusing its quasi-judicial powers by
ignoring its own regulations and rem
dering decisions so inconsistent that its
rrecedents are virtually useless to
lawyer is charged in the report of the
Communications Committee of the
American Ear Association just COM
pleted fer presentation to the associa-
tion's annual meeting in Washington.
October IL.
In its severely critical 65-page report,
the committee devotes major attention
to the Radio Commission, but also
touches on radio advertising, radio
censorship and the recent Canadian
American wave-length agreement,
among other subjects. The report bears
the signatures of Louis G. Caldwell,
Washington radio attorney, committee
chairman John W. Guider. Washing
ton; John c. Kennedy. Portland, Greg,
and Robert Stone, Seattle.
Violations Charged.
Using the Davis equalization amend
ment as an excuse, the report says, the
commission has repeatedly refused to
grant applications on the grounds that
they violate the zone and State quotas
allocated in conformity with the law
directing that radio facilities be di-
vided equally among the five zones and
then among the States within these
zones according to population. Yet the
specific terms of the Davis amendment,
and the commissions regulations under
that amendment, have repeatedly been
violated when the commission, without
hearings. has granted substantial addi-
tional facilities in already overquota
states, the report charges.
Formal regulations are strictly en-
forced in some cases and completely
ignored in Others" says the report. The
commissions decisions, it adds, are not
embodied in a code and it is impos-
sible to know whether they can be
used as preceoents. 1t charges further
that duplicate operation on Gear
channels is allowed without public
hearings in some cases and refused in
others; that experimental assignments
are charged to quotas in some cases
and not in others, and that violations
of identical regulations lead to the
death penalty for some stations yet are
not even considered sufficient reason
for hearings in others.
Favors Urban Listeners.
\ In breaking down certain clear chan
nels, allowing more than one station to
utilize them, the bar report declares
the commission is favoring urban
posals to limit radio advertising are
opposed, though the report declares in
part:
cit cannot be gainsaid that at times
and with respect to many broadcast
stations the advertising talk has been
annoying to listeners, both because of
its character and because of its amount.
On closer scrutiny of the complaints,
however, it will be found that for the
NEST part they are based on a rela-
lively small number of specific pro-
grams.
1.-THE smaller stations, with compara-
lively restricted audiences, furthermore,
have on the whole been worse offenders
than the larger stations in giving way
to extended sales talk and pleading.
In extenuation of many stations it
should be added that during the past
year financial conditions have forced
the taking of advertising which other
wise would not have gained admittance"
With the return of normal conditions
and with the listeners power of censor
ship, the report expresses the further
opinion that advertising excesses will
automatically be eliminated.
Opposes Censorship.
The Bar Committee opposes the CEN
sorship of radio programs. particularly
political talks, in spite of the recent
Nebraska Supreme Court decision hold
ing stations liable for libelous state
ments along with the speaker.
Skepticism is expressed toward the re-
Gently enacted Canadian plan of ma
tionaliZing radio, the committee holding
that 1t faces serious practical obstacles
in financial way. To support this
view it cites the fact that nearly $78,-
100000 was spent on broadcasting in
this country last year, whereas Canada.
with slightly over 100000 licensed sets.
proposes to acquire existing stations and
support its nationalized system by reve-
nues from taxes of So year on set
owners and limited revenues from ad-
vertisers. The Canadian wave-length
agreement, whereby this country recent
1y relinquished some of its channels for
sharing with Canada, was called ill
advised, unjust to particular broad
casters in the United States and per-
haps also legally invalid"