Broadcasting (Oct - Dec 1949)

ONE of the clinchers in the U. S. industry advisory delegation's decision against acceptance of Cuban NARBA proposals was this map, showing in shaded areas the skywave losses WBT Charlotte would suffer from proposed 250-w Havana co-channel station. Havana station's service radius would be about two miles. * * * Cuban Channel Raid (Continued from page 19) position to Cuba's proposals. Those voting were those on hand at the time, not the full group who have been attending the conference fairly steadily since it opened in early September. It was pointed out, further, that among those voting to reject the demands NAB represents hundreds of stations, NBC and CBS presumably were taking the interests of their affiliates into account, and CCBS represents 18 stations. While ABC like the two other networks would be thinking also of affiliates' interests, Fort Industry and Westinghouse by comparison represent relatively few stations. Results of the industry advisory group's balloting were communicated to the State Dept. by Chairman Hyde and Fletcher Warren, Ambassador to Paraguay, who is political advisor to the delegation. At the State Dept. the situation was canvassed Friday in a highlevel conference called by Undersecretary James E. Webb. The final decision, authorities reported, would await consultation with FCC. It was expected these sessions would be delayed until this week since several commissioners, including Chairman Wayne Coy, were absent from Washington late last week. Economic Factor Disclosure of economic considerations, including a purported Cuban request for a $200 million loan from the U.S., was considered a big factor in swinging the industry advisory group against acceptance of any treaty embodying the Cuban proposals. The disclosure was made by William B. Lodge, CBS vice president in charge of general engineering. One of the chief arguments against a Cuba-dictated treaty was this question: "If we capitulate to Cuba, what will Mexico and Canada demand next time?" Certainly, it was felt, they could justify substantially greater demands in the future. Mexico's failure to participate in the cui-rent conference was a further deterrent. Even if the U.S. satisfied Cuba's requests she would still have to face Mexico's. It was also emphasized that Cuba has not taken advantage of its present assignments and can hardly, from an economic standpoint, make full use of those now demanded. Additionally it was felt the demands do not accurately reflect Cuba's needs but actually represent the desires of Cuban broadcasters rather than the national interest. Some of the Cubans who would benefit from accomplishment of the proposals, it was contended, are members of the Cuban delegation. Senate Majority Leader Lucas signaled his opposition to the Cuban demands in a telegram to Chairman Hyde, with copies to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and FCC Chairman Coy. He said the proposals "are so damaging to stations in the Middle West, including my state of Illinois, as well as to stations throughout the U.S.," that they "should not be considered." He made clear that "if the U.S. delegation accepts these proposals in an agreement, I will, as Senate Majority Leader, call for an investigation with the purpose of preventing ratification." Any international treaty must be ratified by the Senate to become effective. Cuba has given little idea of the degree of protection it will seek for the Cuban Class 1 stations it demands. Generally it would follow these lines with respect to future U. S. assignments on 590 and 950 kc, two of the regional channels staked out for use as Cuban Class 1 frequencies, and 690, 860 and 1010" kc, Canadian 1-A's. 1. No further assignments of new stations on these channels in the U. S. within the area south of latitude 31 degrees and east of longitude 93 degrees (all of Florida and parts of southern Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana including Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans and Baton Rouge) . 2. Boundary protection to Cuba on the channel involved, the exact degree of which has not been determined and may depend upon the general treaty protection require ments for Class 1 stations. Cuba also wants the regional channels 550, 570, 630, 920, and 980 kc, plus 1010 kc, marked for Cuban Class 1 use with the same sort of protections insofar as future U. S. assignments are concerned. However, authorities said, this would not adversely affect existing assignments on these channels. It also seemed likely that, to meet Cuba's idea of protection, an outstanding proposed grant to Brennan Broadcasting Co. for 690 kc at Jacksonville would have to be deleted. The operation of WNEL San Juan, P.R. on 860 kc also would probably need modification, perhaps by moving it to 850 kc. Plan 50 kw Operations On most of its Class 1 channels Cuba proposes 50 kw operations with directional antennas. An exception is 950 kc, which would be used at Havana with 10 kw, directionalized. The U.S. 1-A clear channel Cuba seeks for a Cuban Class 1 station is KFI Los Angeles' 640 kc, to which Cuba now has Class 2, 25kw rights. The three additional U.S. 1-A's to which Cuba demands rights are 660 kc, used by WNBC New York; 760 kc, by WJR Detroit, and 780 kc, by WBBM Chicago. On each Cuba proposes to operate Class 2 stations with 10 kw directionalized. using 660 and 760 kc at Havana and 780 kc at Oriente. In each of these three cases Cuba would protect the U.S. dominant 1-A station in accordance with the old NARBA formula permitting certain Cuban use of designated U.S. 1-A's. In the case of 760 kc, however, Cuba anticipated "certain difficulty" in meeting the full protection requirements, but thought an understanding could be ^ reached. The three U.S. 1-A's on which , Cuba seeks power boosts are 640 j kc (KFI), which would be used for a Class 1 station at Santa Clara in lieu of the present Class 2, 25kw assignment at Havana; 830 kc (WCCO Minneapolis), which would ' be used at Havana with 5 instead of the current 1-kw assignment; and 890 kc (WENR-WLS Chicago), which would be used at Havana with 5 kw instead of Camaguey with 1 kw. Directionals To Be Used All these proposed Cuban oper ! ations would employ directional antennas. The U.S. dominant and Class 2 stations on 640 kc would be accorded the protection to which they were entitled under the old NARBA, but the U.S. would make ; no future 640-kc assignments that j would increase interference to 1 CMQ Havana. WCCO (830 kc) J and WENR-WLS (890 kc) would j be protected as in the case of 660, f 760, and 780 kc, though Cuba ex ji pects difficulty in giving full protection to WENR-WLS. The cases in which Cuba openly | threatened to increase power unless additional protection is forthcoming involved KPRC Houston on 950 kc and WFBC Greenville, S. C, on 1330 kc. Each apparently would have to add at least one tower to reduce radiations toward Cuba to the demanded extent. So would WSUN St. Petersburg, \ Fla. (620 kc), while WJBO Baton Rouge (1150 kc) would have to adjust or alter its present antenna. WIBS Santurce, P.R. (740 kc) might have to be moved to 730 kc. WKAQ San Juan (620 kc) would have to reduce radiation toward Cuba, but the exact steps that would be necessary had not been i determined. I U.S. 1-B stations which would I find themselves with "incomplete" protection under the Cuban pro i posals were listed as WCFL Chicago (1000 kc); WBZ Boston (1030 kc); KYW Philadelphia (1060 kc) ; KRLD Dallas and WTIC Hartford (1080 kc); WBAL Baltimore and KTHS Hot Springs (1090 kc); ; WBT Charlotte (1110 kc); WNEW New York and KWKH Shreveport ^ (1130 kc); WRVA Richmond (1140 kc); KVOO Tulsa and WWVA Wheeling (1170 kc); WOWO Fort Wayne (1190 kc); WTOP Washington (1500 kc); KOMA Oklahoma City and WKBW Buffalo. (1520 kc). The NARBA conference has been in progress since mid-September. The Interim NARBA Agreement of 1946 expired last March 29, but \ (Continued on page U7) Page 20 • December 5, 1949 BROADCASTING • Telecasting