NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1948)

clear channels now assigned to her be exchanged for two channels in the lower portion of standard broadcast band. The frequencies 1220 and 1570 kc. now assigned to Mexico for Class I use would be exchanged for 630 and 980 kc., which would be used by Mexico for Class I stations. Mexico explained that 590 and 950 kc., now allocated as regional channels, were reciuested by her for Class I use because it appeared that these two channels could be cleared of their regional assignments more readily than any other regional channels which would serve her purpose. Mexico said also that if other channels near these could be cleared more easily they would have no olijection. Her desire for lower frequencies was based primarily upon these chan¬ nels better propagation characteristics over the Mexican terrain. Canada, Cuba and the United States in a brief reply pointed out the highly compex engineering problems and possible economic consequences which would result from these proposals. Cuba added that she was using the fre¬ quencies under discussion and would not under any cir¬ cumstances consider any change. Canada, in discussing the matter, stated that she had 40 stations which would be affected by the proposal, 30 of which operated with direc¬ tional antennas. The United States went into some statistical detail show¬ ing that the Mexican proposal of complete reallocation would involve a shift of approximately 1800 U. S. stations. In re.sponse Mexico stated that she recognized her pro¬ posal i)resented highly complicated problems requiring the most careful study before the Canadian Conference, that modifications of her proposal would probably be required in the light of such study, and that Mexico was willing to consider the jiossibility of meeting her needs through some other method in order to avoid as much as possible the dif¬ ficulties described l)y the other nations. However, upon presentation of the Mexican proposal, Canada, Cuba and the United States indicated that the formulation of specific recommendations with respect to any one frequency or grou])s of frequencies was beyond the scope of Committee B and the Engineering Meeting. Mexico recognized that the acceptance of her i)roposals with respect to a complete reallocation of channels as well as the principles of protecting the services of clear channel stations in other countries and limiting the signals of regional channel stations at the border involved a great number of changes in assignments and stated that it should lie kept in mind that if the countries within the region are not disposed to accept a certain amount of .self-sacrifice so as to satisfy their mutual needs it will not be possible to acce])t any of numerous proposals involving changes, particularly those referring to new technical standards. Following refusal by the Chairman of Committee B to permit the procedure pro])osed by Mexico, that country withdrew from the agenda all other items of a similar nature submitted for detailed discussion. Mexico suggested that investigation should be made of increasing power on certain regional channels similar to that permitted Cul:)a on certain channels under the Interim Agreement. Mexico expressed the belief that the purpose for which she was requesting additional clear channels would not be served by the use of specific stations on regional channels. Cuba's Views On the subject of clear channels, Cuba’s point of view made no provision for stations such as those now designated I-A, which Cuba proposed to change to “national channel.” The Class I category proposed by Cuba corresponds essen¬ tially to the I-B classification under her proposal which would operate with a minimum power of 10 kilowatts. The.se stations would be prohibited from radiating in excess of 50 kilowatts toward any other country making use of the same channels. Cuba felt that her frequency assignments under the present agreements are inadequate and that Cuba needs approximately 12 assignments of channels for the use of Class I-B stations with full I-B protection. She no longer desires to continue the special categories of stations for which exceptions were made to her and desires the allocation of channels to her in the same manner as such allocations are l)rovided for other countries and under the same rights and limitations. Commenting upon the proposal of Cuba, the United States i)ointed to the basic problems arising out of the omission of any provision for stations of the present I-A type and, in connection with the general statement of Cuba with respect to her need for Class I-B stations, the United States jiointed out that they, too, are faced with needs for additional service to millions of people in the United States and outlined the effort being made in clear channel pro¬ ceedings to determine how these needs may liest be met. The suggested plans for meeting these needs include possible increases in power, to 750 or perhaps 1000 KW, on clear channels, and possible relocation of clear channel stations. Class V Stations In connection with the Canadian proposal for Class V stations of low power (50 watts) on Class I channels, Cuba stated that although she believed such a class of station might well prove desirable for some countries, it probably would be of little use to Cuba because of the high noise level in her country. Mexico felt that this type “V” station in all probability could be made use of by Mexico but believed that likewise, in view of the high static levels in Mexico, perhaps a 100 watt maximum ]iower would be preferable. Idle United States in reply recognized the objectives sought to be obtained by the Canadian proposal and stated that in their view Class V stations would be essentially similar to Class II stations except that the jirotection to which Class V stations would be entitled will be less than the protection to which a Class H station is entitled and the j-iower of such stations would be less. Ill clarifying this point of her proposal for Class V sta¬ tions, Canada stated that it was her view that Class V stations could be allocated only to a clear channel on which that country has an assignment and therefore is dissimilar to the Class 1 1 classification. [4]