Archives

Search Archives

Transforming Secondary Education: New $100 million initiative to improve education quality across the nation.
Learn More »

Recent Spotlights »

View all Archives - Ford Foundation - General »

Ford Foundation Annual Report 1966







Special Programs

Noncommercial Television

In a statement submitted to the Federal Communications Commission on August 1, the Foundation opened up an intense national discussion of the revolutionary implications of communications satellites for television and the well-being of American society. It proposed the creation of a satellite system to serve both noncommercial television—informational, cultural, and instructional—and commercial television.

The Foundation set forth a model system—one way, but not necessarily the only way, to unlock "the unlimited potential of noncommercial television for human welfare and the quality of American life." The yield would be twofold:

  • first, a transmission system free of charge. (The nation's 115 noncommercial stations are not connected because they cannot afford present charges for long-distance transmission.)

  • second, a major new source of funds for programming and operations of noncommercial television, whose full development has been stunted by chronic underfinancing. (Satellites are destined in the next few years to replace costlier land-based transmission, and substantial new funds for noncommercial television could come from the savings the commercial networks would enjoy.)

The Foundation described a domestic satellite system as a national resource, since the underlying space technology was created by multi-billion dollar government research. Ownership of the resource by a nonprofit corporation, and application of part of the benefits to noncommercial television, the Foundation stated, would constitute a fitting dividend for the American people.

A United States Senate subcommittee held a week-long hearing in mid-August on the Foundation's proposal. Witnesses included McGeorge Bundy, president of the Foundation, and Fred W. Friendly, television adviser; commercial and educational broadcasters; the Communications Satellite Corporation, a private corporation licensed for international communications, which itself seeks a franchise to own a domestic system; and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which owns the major part of the land-based cable and microwave system through which long-distance television is presently transmitted

As Congress and the F.C.C. studied various proposals, the Foundation began conferences with educators and community leaders across the country to invite suggestions on how the proposed satellite system could be most effective for informational, cultural, and instructional television.

The Foundation's submission, which was based on experts' analyses of legal, economic, and scientific aspects, also urged that no final decision be made before the report of the Carnegie Commission, a special body organized in 1965 by Carnegie Corporation to study the future of noncommercial television. (The report was scheduled for publication early in 1967.)

The Foundation does not seek to own or operate a satellite system, but it is prepared to join with others in making a formal proposal to the F.C.C. for the establishment of a nonprofit domestic satellite corporation with trustees representing noncommercial and commercial broadcasters, foundations, schools, universities, and, perhaps, government.

In addition to benefits for noncommercial television, the model system suggested such advantages as an expanded number of television channels (in each time zone, six for commercial broadcasting, one for noncommercial informational and cultural programs for home viewers, and four for instructional television at all levels from grade school to university); live instructional programs for some 60 million students; and a wider choice for the viewing public through an effective "second force" offering a continuous flow of cultural and informational programs in prime time.

The Foundation advanced its views in response to an F.C.C. invitation to interested parties to comment on the crucial public policy question of who shall own