my viewpoint was radically different than the thoughts that he expressed, but he has had no direct contact that I know of with the broadcasting phase of our union activities, nor have I ever seen him sit at a board meeting of the local musicians' union, so I have had no contact with Mr. Bagley. All I know about him is from hearing him speak and I read his testimony and was quite amazed in the position that he took about the innocence of the musicians' union where standby fees were concerned. I think these canceled checks speak for themselves. The reason that our KHJ pays no stand-by fees here is, because of the stand-by clause in our contract, we have avoided any musicians who were not members of the union and have not put an amateur program where such situations would develop. Mr. MCCANN. These checks which you have given to me are checks payable from the Mutual Broadcasting Co.- Mr. WEISS. Don Lee Broadcasting System. Mr. MCCANN. Don Lee Broadcasting System to the order of the musicians' union. Is that the local here, local 47? Mr. WEISS. That is San Francisco Local No. 6. That shows on their endorsement on the back. Mr. MCCANN. Would you prefer to furnish the committee with photostats of these and keep the checks? Mr. WEISS. Be glad to, and I would like to for the record; yes. Mr. MCCANN. I wish that you would make a note of the fact that when those photostats are received they will be marked "Exhibit No. 16" and filed with the committee. (The photostats referred to are on file with the committee.) Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Weiss, have you anything else to offer with respect to any of these subjects that you feel will be of value? Mr. WEISS. Our history of the frequency modulation-and again we pioneered in that in the West. We built a frequency-modulation station here about 6 years ago, and the first thing that the musicians' union did about it, I was at a board meeting in New York when my assistant, Mr. Brown, called me and said that the local of the musicians' union had informed him that since we had a frequency-modulation station we must therefore immediately employ seven more musicians on our regular staff, whether they played on FM or not, and that demand was acceded to in my absence, and we carried that excess of musicians until another order came through from Petrillo-as I remember the history of that-that the men could not play at all on FM, and so we dropped these extra men that we had been carrying because we had an FM station. Now, frequency modulation has gone through a strange history which has tended to hold down the development of the art and the number of receivers that could be used to obtain reception of frequency modulation, because after we had built up considerable interest in it here, the Commission, in rearranging the spectrum of the various services that had to be accommodated, shifted the frequency of our frequency modulation stations so that the existing receivers could no longer hear the station. Mr. MCCANN. You are talking now about the Commission in Washington. Mr. WEISS. Yes; the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. MCCANN. Was that corrected or did they leave that that way? Mr. WEISS. No; that is the present situation. We are in what they call the upper band that they have set aside for that branch of the art, and it was about that time that the order came out from Mr. Petrillo that we were not permitted to release any AM programs over FM that had any live musicians on them, either network or local, and that the only way we could have live musicians on frequency modulation was to pay those musicians the same scale plus a staff orchestra for the purpose that we paid for amplitude modulation. I thought that order was highly unfair, because the audience for amplitude is something like 40,000,000 homes, and it would be very generous to say that the audience for frequency modulation as of today would possibly aggregate more than 200,000 homes. Mr. KEARNS. I think that is high. Mr. WEISS. I think so. I think that is generous. Mr. MCCANN. And yet the requirement was made of you that you should pay twice as much for musicians for FM? Mr. WEISS. That is right, sir. Mr. MCCANN. Now, as a radio expert, I would like to have your opinion on this: As between AM and FM, which is the better system? Mr. WEISS. Well, the blow struck at frequency modulation by the musicians' union is of especial significance in view of the characteristic of frequency modulation, because the system was designed to express a far wider range of tone than amplitude made possible, and in addition it had some other characteristics with which we are not concerned in this issue, such as the elimination of man-made and nature-made static. Mr. MCCANN. I understood this was very important to certain sections, though. Mr. WEISS. In the East, where there has been the static, but the important thing about the consideration of frequency modulation is its capacity to convey a far wider range of tone in terms of frequencies that was possible under amplitude, because of the defective swing method employed in the diffusion of the sound. I perhaps can illustrate that numerically by explaining to you that the network program which you hear over the air from amplitude is limited to 8,000 cycles if it comes over an A telephone line, whereas frequency modulation ranges well over 20,000 cycles, so that the great range of tone below the present range limit of the present telephone and above are cut off in amplitude, but are given full and clear, and with a greater sensitivity, plus the faculty of reproducing music so that each instrument stands out almost cameolike, without the diffusion which you generally get in an amplitude broadcast. Now, we were very disappoined over the withdrawal of the musicians, because of the fact that, without live music, frequency modulation is just another system of reproducing sound and never will have any great appeal or make any great advance, because for the speaking voice there is not sufficient difference between frequency modulation and amplitude modulation to warrant the investment in the new equipment or in the new receiver. Do I make that clear? Mr. MCCANN. Yes, sir. Then, in effect, what has happened is that the order of Mr. Petrillo has effectually stopped the development and enjoyment of an improved system of radio transmission? 66874-47-vol. 1-36 Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Counsel, I want to develop a point there. Mr. MCCANN. May he answer that first so that it won't be just left blank? Mr. KEARNS. I would rather not have that answered at this time. Mr. MCCANN. All right, strike the question. Mr. KEARNS. I met with Mr. Bailey, who is president of the FM Association, and he represents the FM broadcasters. That is not a network, but it is the individual stations; isn't that correct? Mr. WEISS. Yes; I forgot to explain that. Mr. KEARNS. The reason why I want to get your answer about all of this, Mr. Bailey informs me he has met with the broadcasters and he feels that the broadcasters are giving him the run-around. He meets with Mr. Petrillo and he feels that he is giving him the run-around, and they don't know where they are going. They are a bunch of new fellows coming in that don't know where they are going on this. The broadcasters tell them-and when I speak of the broadcasters I mean the networks-the broadcasters tell him that there is either a contract with Mr. Petrillo not to use FM or a verbal agreement not to go into FM. Now, Mr. Counsel, we are not able to ascertain whether it is written or verbal. So then Mr. Bailey goes to Mr. Petrillo and Mr. Petrillo says he has no contract with the broadcasters against FM, if they want to give FM out, that is up to them, he is not withholding the power of FM. There is some kind of a funny deal there that it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out, because somebody is telling one fellow one thing and another fellow another thing, and when you try to get to the bottom of it here, we can't find out whether the broadcasters are against FM or whether Mr. Petrillo, in answer to your questions, is trying to ban FM. Mr. MCCANN. May I proceed with that, with two or three questions? Mr. WEISS. Without wanting to debate the semantics of Mr. Petrillo's position and this expression of holding off television, if a man establishes prohibitive prices in relation to the value of the thing that he sells, and that art is essentially a profession in which you have the highest prices for the material that is sold, whether it is frequency modulation or something else, in my opinion, that kills off the demand for his product. Mr. MCCANN. As a network president you are not opposed to FM? Mr. WEISS. On the contrary, I am one of the pioneers of it. I had one of the early demonstrations at Major Armstrong's home within a very short time after the first frequency modulation went on the air on Long Island, and the thing that was very dramatic to me was being taken to a home 50 miles away from his frequency modulation transmitter and literally hearing a man's heartbeat with a clarity of tone that I thought was tremendously dramatic. It was the only FM station on the air at the time, and we immediately placed our orders for our equipment and installed ours here in Los Angeles, and FM applications have been made for San Francisco, and have explored the possibility of relaying, in view of the nonavailability of coaxial cable, to make a network between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and relaying of the high frequencies by a reflector method, because the field of broadcasting for frequency modulation is in the higher spectrum and the signal can be picked up at a distance of approximately 50 miles, which is 1 degree of the curvature of the earth. You can take frequency modulation and, in effect, reflect it as you would light, and it can be picked up and sent on and boost the program along to their dials with the same clarity of signal as at the time it leaves the original transmitter. So I would like the record to show that we are emphatically for the development of frequency modulation. Mr. KEARNS. Would I be imposing on you to ask you this, and you may answer it if you wish, or not: In your opinion do the other networks share the same ideas you have about FM? Mr. WEISS. I would be glad to express an opinion about that, if I ran qualify it by the considerations that must animate men who have different economic ties. Mr. KEARNS. Surely. Mr. WEISS. I would say that the advance of frequency modulation represents an advancement in the art that has been demonstrated to a point that we cannot ignore it. Now, then, against that, in the minds of some broadcasters and some network companies, I presume, who, after all, have to be practical men, it is a new advancement of the art that may replace amplitude and represents a threat to the economic investment that they have in the existing facilities, and also that the readjustment might very well change the alinement of their affiliations. So that I can understand Mr. KEARNS. There is a worry there. Mr. WEISS. There is a concern, and I think it is not one that you can impugn, because it is a natural one, it seems to me, and that is magnified, I think, in the case of the National Broadcasting Co., who are owned by a radio manufacturing organization—the Radio Corporation of America and I am not impugning their motives. I can understand how businessmen, particularly those removed from ownership, who have the responsibility of management and who must produce a return on existing investment or must amortize investments in existing equipment over a given period of time, could well anticipate that the introduction of a new method or new device might prematurely make existing radio equipment obsolete and result in a substantial loss to their company. I don't say that the commission or anybody in those moves was necessarily dishonest, but there is that relation between the public interest and your own economic interests, and I don't know anybody in the business that I would accuse of having deliberately held that back. Mr. MCCANN. You mean, in other words, that the National Broadcasting Co., in some respects, is very similar to Mr. Petrillo, in that they own a number of stations that are rated at many millions of dollars; that is true, isn't it? Mr. WEISS. That is also true of the other networks, too. Mr. MCCANN. I know. We will just use the National Broadcasting Co. for an illustration. And these stations, in the event of the opportunity afforded the public to enjoy the benefits of FM radio, would become virtually obsolete if there were an opportunity given to the public to enjoy live music and live shows and all of the advantages now enjoyed by AM stations. Mr. WEISS. Well, I would like to qualify the answer to that, Mr. McCann, if I may, because I don't want to do any injustice to a competitor, which makes my position in discussing this a delicate one, but let's look at the picture realistically as I see it and as the Federal Communications Commission envisions it. Frequency modulation is admittedly a better way and a simpler way, and, by the way, a more economical way Mr. MCCANN. That is what is the most important of all. Mr. WEISS. Of transmitting sound. Now, everybody in the industry will agree with that. It does not have the faculty, however, of transmitting sound over as great a distance as the higher-powered stations that you, Mr. McCann, were talking about, which are owned in the principal cities by the networks. Whether the accommodation of a sufficient additional number of frequency-modulation stations can be achieved still within the economy of operation remains to be proved, and it is anticipated that, even when frequency modulation is in the ascendancy over amplitude and the greatest number of homes are equipped with frequency-modulation receivers in contrast to the amplitude, it is contemplated that these great, high-powered stations which you mentioned a moment ago would continue in operation for the saturation of those areas where the population is so scattered that it could not economically justify the installation of a sufficient amount of frequency-modulation to serve those sparse areas. Now, it is axiomatic in our business, as it is in the visual area, that the smaller your circulation is, the more expensive it is to serve the individual member, because in the mass, of course, you have economy which comes from mass production. So that, even when looking ahead, we will say 5 or 8 years, if frequency modulation should become the favorite method of broadcasting and broadcasting reception—if in the interim Mr. Petrillo permits us to use music; that will speed it up-it is still contemplated that the so-called clear-channel stations of the country in the amplitude band will continue to function and to serve interchangeably with their programs with FM, to serve those sparsely populated areas of the country that cannot justify the installation of an FM station to serve them. They do serve a very definite purpose in that regard, because of the uninterrupted enjoyment of the channels in which they broadcast, which gives them the name "clear channel stations." So it is anticipated that that group would continue to operate, so the threat to the investment is not fatal there, although there may be some diminution in those stations as frequency modulation develops. Does that answer your question? Mr. MCCANN. I think it does. Mr. KEARNS. For the record, Mr. Weiss, and to your knowledge, and this is of your knowledge, you don't know of any agreement that the broadcasters have ever made with Mr. Petrillo to keep FM from having live music? Mr. WEISS. No, sir; I do not. Mr. KEARNS. That is a very important answer. Mr. WEISS. I appreciate that, and it would be less than truthful to answer that any other way. |