Broadcasting Telecasting (Jul-Sep 1955)

broadcasting telecasting September 26, 1955 Vol. 49, No. 13 NEW TWIST TO THE TANGLE: FORGET U S, ADD V'S-LEE Commissioner recommends the FCC give up on uhf, expand vhf service by relaxing rules and getting more spectrum. Meanwhile, NBC's first u gets approval, a Cuban broadcaster says Miami doesn't interfere, and professional broadcasting engineers meet in Washington to go over the whole uhf-vhf dilemma. WITH the FCC on the eve of rolling up its sleeves to tackle the uhf-vhf antipasto, Comr. Robert E. Lee last week tossed in the latest, and what could be the spiciest, ingredient: Give up on uhf; get more vhf channels through relaxing separation factors, moving other services out of the vhf band. But even as Comr. Lee made his blunt and dramatic proposal, the Commission: • Granted NBC the right to buy ch. 17 WBUF-TV Buffalo for $312,500. • Broadcaster A. H. Barletta Jr. of Cuba told the FCC there were no problems with interference between Miami stations and Havana stations. • The Professional Group on Broadcast Transmission Systems of the Institute of Radio Engineers heard words both of encouragement and of pessimism about the possibility of solving the uhf-vhf dilemma. The Commission is scheduled to begin formally considering the uhf-vhf problem next Monday (Oct. 3). It has before it petitions to de-intermix selected cities, to relax standards to permit additional vhf channels to be dropped in between existing vhf tv stations, to revise the present allocation principles, and recommendations that uhf be succored from its current economic plight through a public engineering conference. Just when the Commission may arrive at a solution is anybody's guess. It is no secret that there is no unanimity on the steps to be taken. LEE'S WAY OUT UHF doesn't measure up. Therefore, the best thing for tv is to squeeze additional vhf channels out of existing spectrum allocations and at the same time lower separation factors. These are FCC Comr. Robert E. Lee's blunt suggestions for the resolution of the current uhf-vhf impasse. He made the recommendations at the first NARTB regional conference in Chicago last week. Reaction was immediate. Most vociferous were the objectors. There were some voices raised in favor of Mr. Lee's approach. In essence, Mr. Lee proffered two plans. First, he recommended a long range move to pre-empt for tv a block of vhf frequencies running from 60 to 342 mc. This involves moving military, government, public and safety services to areas above 342 mc. Mr. Lee first made this suggestion at the NARTB conven tion in Washington last May. Secondly, Mr. Lee said, give tv seven additional channels in the immediate future by using the 132-174 mc band. This is now occupied by military and government agencies, but is mostly used by amateurs, maritime, industrial, public safety, transportation and domestic services. Mr. Lee suggested that these users be given space above 500 mc (see condensation of Mr. Lee's speech on next page). For the immediate present, Mr. Lee plumped hard for the relaxation of the mileage separations required under existing FCC regulations. Present regulations call for Zone I vhf stations to be 170 miles apart, Zone II 190 miles apart, and Zone HI 220 miles apart. Mr. Lee recommended that these be changed THE TASK TO TACKLE THESE are the topics facing the FCC when it buckles down to serious consideration of the plight of uhf next week: • De-intermixture and vhf drop-in petitions. • Relaxation of mileage separations. • Use of directional antennas and low power. • Final action on proposed rule-making to construct tv stations' transmitter sites to within five miles of the boundary of the principal city. • Use of boosters to fill out uhf service areas. • Use of privately-owned intercity relays to aid small market stations in getting network programs economically. • Petitions to delete educational reservations. • Final action on the proposed rulemaking to permit uhf stations to radiate 5 million watts. The Commission already has taken some steps to alleviate the uhf predicament. These are (1) permission to use 100 w and no antenna minimum, (2) operate stations with no local program ( ming (satellite operation), (3) prohibition for a station to sign an exclusive terri i torial agreement with a network, (4) liberalization of the multiple ownership rule, permitting one entity to own up to , seven stations, not more than five of them in the vhf band. as follows: Zone I, 100-200 miles; Zone II, 120-135 miles, and Zone III, 135-150 miles. Zone I includes the densely populated northeast, middle Atlantic and north central states. Zone II is the remainder of the country except for the Gulf area which is Zone III. The mileage criterion was one of the key decisions made when the FCC lifted its fouryear-long freeze on tv applications in April 1952. These were fixed to accommodate the population density of Zone I, the more open areas of Zone II and the errant propagation characteristics of radio waves in Zone III. Mr. Lee also called on the Commission to authorize the use of directional antennas, reverse polarization and the maximum utilization of carrier offset. Directional antennas have the effect of confining a broadcast signal mostly in one direction. This protects a co-channel station from interference if it is on the side which has been limited, and thus permits closer spacing. Telecast signals today are horizontally polarized — i.e., they are transmitted so that their plane is horizontal to the earth. Closer spacing should be possible, it is held, if horizontal signals are broadcast by one station and vertical signals by another. By decreasing the areas of interference, this would permit two stations on the same frequency to be located closer together than if all-horizontal. Under present regulations, tv stations must offset their carriers with other co-channel stations. This means that where one station is on one carrier, other stations are 10 kc above or below the same carrier. In discussing this latest plan, Mr. Lee warned that fm should not be moved from its present position (88-108 mc) in the spectrum. He also spoke against forcing any revisions in present vhf tv stations and declared that present uhf grantees should be favored in any hearings that might result from the opening up of new vhf channels. Comr. Lee did not advocate abolishing all uhf television. Where it has been successful, keep it, he said. The consensus of those opposed to this approach to solve the uhf-vhf problem took the view that Mr. Lee's recommendations would result in a "restricted" service. They also expressed their belief that tv could not be a national competitive service without uhf — that there were just not enough vhf channels to go around, at least not soon enough. They felt that it would be long years before it would be possible to move other services out of the vhf portion of the spectrum. This was, they said, because such a move would require coordination of many government agencies, and possible Congressional action as well. And they pointed out, an all-vhf tv system would serve populated areas, but would deny local expression to small town communities. Many objectors to the Lee approach feared that cutting back on separations would result in the re-emergence of the interference problems that brought on the 1948 tv freeze. The 1948-52 tv ice age resulted from intolerable Broadcasting • Telecasting September 26, 1955 • Page 27