Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr - Jun 1952)

Vloreover, both DuMont and the Commission provide for intermixfare of VHF and UHF channels n numerous communities. A deailed comparison of the proposed issignments community-by-commuiity reveals the important fact that ander both the DuMont and the tcj Commission plan the great major'tatrjfcy of communities would receive he identical number of VHF, UHF, C r jr VHF and UHF assignments. 71. On the other hand, the Du..: ; Mont assignment plan differs from „■ chat of the Commission in several (|j important respects. The present lnJ section deals with these differences ; Jin the two plans in so far as they Ijfll-soncern the basis for assignments. Elsewhere in the Report are dis; Missed other differences between JJ«e DuMont plan and the Assignc ment Table adopted herein. HFfj 72. DuMont's major criticism of j 10 the Commission's proposed Table i 6 of Assignments was that it allegedly failed to provide adequately 2 for the commercial television needs tj01, of large cities. In its comment of • • May 7, 1951, DuMont stated its jncij agreement with Priority No. 1 but f0n objected to Priorities Nos. 2. 3, and jD(j|i. DuMont alleged that these nrii{a]i:orities were unrealistic in that they e fr| failed to take adequate account of plfhe need and demand for services rivekin large cities; that they failed to aneli recognize present and lone-range Alsij differences as between VHF and taipUHF; and that they were harmful n a? to the future of networking. As an alternative to the Commission's priitfeorities, DuMont recommended the following two priorities: (a) Provide channels which will I permit one service without re"j. gard to population. °e'5 (b) Encourage fair economic J] and equitable operation of tele' I ; vision service through assignUJ ment to major metropolitan yjil service areas of not less than )aj6 four VHF channels when techas»£ nically feasible under the proMi; posed standards and with fur,Jij ther distribution in allocation in \M relationship to population of communities in the service ,01 areas: provision being: made for jpju transfer of unused frequencies ,uj and adjustment by subsequent M assignment of specific "flexibil'i ity channels." || 73. A basic objective of the Duff Mont assignment plan is to provide 'Piinajor metropolitan centers with 4tmultiple VHF stations. In partic*"iular, DuMont seeks the assignment <*f »f four VHF channels to such comu inunities — an objective directly re[f; lated to DuMont's contention that ''I this is necessary to promote netjjj work competition. By the assignHMerit of four VHF channels in the nj| largest markets, DuMont assumes h that it would thereby obtain an out[jj let for its network operations in „!; the most important centers. Con|Ij trariwise, DuMont fears that if | only one or two VHF channels are assigned in these markets, it would i be unable to obtain affiliates in r| such centers and would be in the I| position of dependence on UHF it outlets. Because of the time reM. , quired to develop UHF stations, ic],lDuMont contends that it would be J(placed at a severe competitive hanijiMdicap in relation to other networks. 74. In its sworn statement of August 17, 1951, DuMont does not specifically repeat the recommendation in its original comments with respect to a revision of the Commission's priorities. Rather, DuMont attempts to show that both its own assignment plan and the FCC plan seek the same dual objective. DuMont describes this objective, as follows : (1) To provide television service, as far as possible, to all people of the United States; and (2) To provide the most services to the most people. 75. After allegedly showing that the two plans are alike in objective, DuMont attempts to prove that its plan is superior to that of the Commission in more nearly realizing the common objective. DuMont states that both plans meet DuMont Principle 1 in that they provide for service to all people of the United States. However, DuMont emphasizes that its own plan is superior in providing more VHF service to the larger centers, and that it is therefore more efficient in producing a highly competitive network situation than the FCC plan. 76. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., in its comment of May 1951, and later in its evidence presents views generally similar to those of DuMont in respect to the need for providing additional commercial VHF stations in key economic areas. It calls attention to the need for an additional assignment policy of insuring to the maximum extent possible a competitive commercial television service. However, CBS does not suggest any specific system of priorities but rather recommends that the Commission's priorities be applied in a "flexible" manner. Specifically, CBS urges that an additional commercial VHF channel should be assigned to Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. 77. As set forth above, the Commission has concluded that larger cities should be assigned more VHF channels than communities comprising fewer people. However, the Commission cannot agree with the DuMont principle that an overriding and paramount objective of a national television assignment plan should be the assignment of four commercial VHF stations to as many of the major markets as possible. The Commission is of the view that healthy economic competition in the television field will exist within the framework of the Assignment Table adopted herein. Moreover, in the assignment plan adopted, the Commission has taken into account other significant factors. For example, the Commission in fulfilling what it considers the mandate of the Communications Act to provide an equitable distribution of facilities has attempted to provide at least some VHF channels to each of the states, although in some cases this was done where an assignment might otherwise have been made to a large metropolitan center in an adjacent state. 78. A second policy difference between the DuMont and Commission assignment plans lies in their contrasting views with respect to the importance of individual communities having television assignments. The DuMont view is that emphasis should be placed on locating the assignments, particularly VHF channels, so that the largest number of people will have television service but not necessarily that the largest number of communities should have one or more television stations of their own.18 This view derives from DuMont's premise that the major cities with their large populations are certain to be able to support expensive television facilities, and that smaller communities which are within appropriate range of these cities should obtain service from stations in the large cities, rather than attempt to support stations with their own less substantial economic resources. 79. The Commission, on the other hand, believes that on the basis of the Communications Act it must recognize the importance of making it possible with any table of assignments for a large number of communities to obtain television assignments of their own. In the Commission's view as many communities as possible should have the opportunity of enjoying the advantage that derive from having local outlets that will be responsive to local needs. We believe with respect to the economic ability of the smaller communities to support television stations that it is not unreasonable to assume that enterprising individuals will come forward in such communities who will find the means of financing a television operation. The television art is relatively new and opportunity undoubtedly exists for initiating various methods of reducing television costs. 80. Another difference in assignment principle as between the DuMont and FCC plan lies in respect to the assignments made to the "primarily educational centers." DuMont opposes any reservation for non-commercial educational television stations and under the DuMont plan all of its channel assignments would be available for commercial use.19 With reference to the educational centers, DuMont does not follow the Commission's assignment principle of providing in so far as possible a VHF channel to these communities, which would be reserved for use by non-commercial educational television stations. Thus in 10 of the educational centers to which the Commission has assigned a VHF channel DuMont proposes to assign a UHF channel. 81. The Commission finds that the principles of assignment which DuMont advocates are inadequate in that these principles do not recognize specifically the need to provide an equitable apportionment of channels among the separate states and communities and they do not provide adequately for the educational needs of the primarily educational centers. 82. With respect to the recommendation of CBS that the Commission apply its priorities in a 18 While DuMont as a matter of general principle takes this position in its own assignment plan, DuMont makes at least one assignment to practically every community listed in the Commission's Table of Assignments contained in the Third Notice. 19 Contrariwise, the number of commercial VHF channels in the Commission plan is reduced because of the Commission's policy of reserving one VHF channel for non-commercial educational television use in every community having at least three VHF assignments, unless all of these assignments had been previously licensed. While this principle does not determine in which community an assignment should be made, it is an important factor to be considered in any comparison of the number of commercial VHF channels in the DuMont and the FCC Assignment Tables. 'BROADCASTING • Telecasting flexible manner, the Commission, as previously indicated, formulated its Table of Assignments on the basis of taking into account numerous factors and objectives and did not apply the priorities in a rigid, mechanical way. With respect to the needs of larger communities for additional VHF assignments as set forth by CBS, the Commission believes that in its final Table of Assignments it has provided for these needs to the extent possible, consistent with its other objectives and criteria viewed in the light of the record. With respect specifically to the CBS request for additional commercial VHF assignments in Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, these requests are dealt with in the section of the Report which discusses assignments to individual cities. 83. Whereas both DuMont and CBS contend that the Commission's priorities do not make adequate provision for the competitive and commercial aspects of television, the Joint Committee on Educational Television alleges that the Commission's priorities were deficient in not specifically recognizing non-commercial educational television. The Joint Committee urges that an additional priority should be established between Priority No. 3 and Priority No. 4 reading as follows: To provide a non-commercial educational television service to all parts of the United States by the reservation of frequencies for this purpose. 84. It is not clear from the above statement as to whether or not the Joint Committee actually is proposing an additional assignment principle. An assignment principle refers to: (a) the number of television channels that individual communities should receive, and (b) whether the channels should be in the VHF or the UHF band. The Commission has reserved channels for non commercial educational television use on an extensive basis throughout the United States, but not as a principle of assignment. That is to say, the Commission decided first that a particular community should have three channels on the basis of various criteria, and only subsequently did it decide that one channel should be reserved for educational use. As discussed previously, in one main exception the Commission treated the educational need as a principle of assignment: in the special case of the 46 "primarily educational centers." In this case, the fact of being an educational center influenced the Commission's decision as to the total assignments to these communities, and also influenced its determination as between the assignment of VHF and UHF channels. Moreover, upon request in this proceeding and a proper showing, the Commission has added an assignment as an educational reservation in various communities even though these assignments had not been made to the community in the Third Notice. At any event, in view of our decision discussed elsewhere in this Report to avoid any reference to priorities as such in the Commission's Rules, no further action is necessary with respect to the request of JCET for an additional priority. Prediction of Service Areas and Interference 85. In the Third Notice the CornApril 14, 1952 Part II Final TV Report • Page 9