RECO nse of WHDH-TV, it has apparently been decided that a broade applying for renewal should have no advantage over rival pite its record of performance in the public interest. upset long-standing Commission policy under which the Comall credit to a renewal applicant for its past programming record, proven record of performance to prevail over mere promises. ently clear that the WHDH Case was intended-and is regarded s of S. 2004-as a vehicle for a drastic restructuring of the broady through the license renewal process. CBS is profoundly conlecision of such magnitude can be arrived at in so summary a trast this action with the tortuous progress through Commission lic rule-making proceedings on such mundane matters as station nouncement rules and engineering standards for predicting the SURF directional antennas. Matters of this kind require years before losed and rules amended, but in the WHDH Case restructure of industry was undertaken by three Commissioners-a minority : the a single afternoon. Under existing law the Commission can gain au its criteria for renewal cases at any time, according to its preilections of the moment. This shifting of Commission attitudes and resulting stability can only be ultimately a disservice to the public. S. 2004 would remedy this. The bill requires the Commission to address the ey question in considering broadcast renewal applications: Are the record and epresentations of the existing licensee of such a nature that the Commission can ind that the "public interest, convenience and necessity" would be served by renewing the station's license? If so, this bill calls upon the Commission to renew the license without subjecting a licensee who is performing satisfactorily under Commission standards to competing applications. If, on the other hand, the Commission concludes that the licensee has not met his public service responsibilities, has not lived up to his representations, then S. 2004 requires the Commission to deny the renewal application and accept applications for construction permits from others on a competitive basis. Those who oppose S. 2004 argue that this bill represents au attempt to perate existing licenses. This is wrong in point of fact and, I am confident, ever the intent of the sponsor of the bill. In the opinion of the CBS Law ment, and in the opinion of outside counsel as well, there is no reasonable law or in common sense, for the argument that this bill would confer a rpetuity on any broadcaster. On the contrary, as a practical matter, the legislation contemplated by the bill would probably be to intiny that licensees must undergo at license renewal time. And good. But certainly based upon the plain language of this bill the remainder of the Communications Act, any licensee who his representations, who failed to operate his facilities in d be subject to loss of license. vever, Mr. Chairman, in order to make clear beyond any |