Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1958)

GOVERNMENT continued FCC DISCLAIMS CATV CONTROL The FCC last week washed an old irritant, community antenna television, out of its hair. Community antenna systems do not perform the functions of common carriers as set forth in the Communications Act, the FCC said — and dismissed a 1956 complaint by 13 radio and tv broadcast stations asking the agency to assume jurisdiction over 28 such systems operating in 36 states. Comr. Robert T. Bartley abstained from the FCC vote which threw out the complaint filed April 6, 1956 [Government, April 9. 1956] by KFBC-AM-TV Cheyenne, Wyo.; KSTF (TV) Scottsbluff. Neb.; KFXJ-AMTV Grand Junction. Colo.; KOTA-AM-TV Rapid City, S. D.; KID-AM-TV Idaho Falls. Idaho; KSPR Casper, Wyo.; KG VO-AM-TV Missoula, Mont.; KLIX-AM-TV Twin Falls, Idaho; KLAS-AM-TV Las Vegas, Nev.; KANA Anaconda, Mont.; KGLN Glenwood Springs, Colo.; KRAL Rawlins, Wyo., and KSID Sidney, Neb. Comr. Robert E. Lee did not participate in the FCC action. In turning down the request by the 13 western outlets, the FCC acknowledged that common carriers and CATV systems have several qualities in common. But the significant difference, the FCC emphasized, is that the signals transmitted by the former are determined by the user or subscriber, not the common carrier itself, while the signals transmitted by the CATV system are determined by the system itself, not the customer. Although the complaint had not raised the question of possible FCC jurisdiction over CATV through the agency's radio licensing provisions, the FCC said there is doubt that these provisions may be interpreted to reach CATV systems as long as the systems don't violate prohibitions against excessive eletromagnetic radiation emission. The FCC said that while the Communications Act does not define the specific test of what is and is not a common carrier, the history of the Act has made it clear that its provisions should not apply to persons who are not common carriers in the "ordinary" or "traditionally accepted" concept of common carriers. Fundamental to this is that the customer transmits intelligence of his own choosing, the FCC said. Acknowledging that a CATV operator would be likely to transmit programs to general listener preferences, the FCC said that nevertheless the ultimate choice is with the CATV operator, and that it's obvious the CATV operator can't program according to the desires of each individual among his customers. Even if the FCC could assume common carrier powers over CATV, the order said, the agency doesn't feel it could restrict or control the entry or operation of CATV systems to protect broadcast stations. The 13 outlets had claimed CATV tends to defeat the objectives of the Sixth Order & Report — to provide at least one tv service to all parts of the country and one service to each community; causes reluctance by advertisers to buy a local station when they Page 66 • April 7, 1958 already are getting free circulation via CATV; affects quality of local station programming because of diminished revenues from networks; inhibits construction of local and satellite stations and thus makes it tough for rural subscribers (not served by CATV) to get tv service; may create overlap of the service areas of stations under common control. There are 500 to 600 community television systems throughout the U. S., with the heaviest concentration in mountainous regions. CATV systems, which may be privately operated or owned co-operatively by a community, receive the signals of regular tv broadcast stations in their area via an antenna, usually on a hilltop or other high ground near the community. From this point, signals are transmitted by wire, with suitable amplifiers, to the homes or places of business in a community. Technically, a CATV system may receive and transmit the signals of up to seven tv stations if that many are within its antenna's reach, but the average is three — usually representing programs of the three tv networks. The systems can receive signals from a uhf station and convert them for reception on a conventional vhf receiving set. CATV systems are not legally required to get permission from the tv stations whose signals they retransmit, though some do. The systems charge the set owner an installation fee ranging from $25 to $75 and a monthly fee of $3 to $7.50. Walla Walla Shifted to All-U, In FCC Deintermixture Action The FCC last week finalized its rule-making on Walla Walla, Wash., and amended its tv table of assignments, effective May 12, to make Walla Walla all-uhf by deleting chs. 5 and 8, adding chs. 44 and 50 (educational) and making ch. 22, now reserved for educational use, available for commercial use. Comr. Robert Bartley dissented in this decision. At the same time the Commission rejected proposals by ch. 59 WFAM-TV Lafayette, Ind., to shift ch. 10 from Terre Haute to Lafayette, and by ch. 24 WDAN-TV Danville, 111., to shift ch. 10 from Terre Haute to Danville. The FCC also directed preparation of a document which would deny all ch. 12 rule-making proposals affecting Erie, Pa.; Akron-Cleveland, Ohio; Clarksburg and Weston, both West Virginia, and Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, Mich. This proceeding has involved conflicting proposals to shift ch. 12 from Erie to the Cleveland-Akron area, or to Akron or Cleveland alone, or to Canton or Cleveland for educational use. The proceeding has also involved the reassigning of ch. 12 from Flint to Saginaw-Bay City-Flint, or to Ann Arbor. The proposal to shift ch. 12 from Erie to Akron-Cleveland or to Akron alone would have necessitated transmitter site and possible channel changes of facilities in Clarksburg and Weston, W. Va. The Commission last week invited comments by May 12 to a proposal by ch. 12 KTVH (TV) Hutchinson, Kan., to shift that channel to Wichita, Kan., so that KTVH could request modification of its license to specify operation on ch. 12 at Wichita. Comrs. Bartley and Frederick Ford dissented. The Commission also invited comments by May 12 to petitions for rule-making to ( 1 ) shift ch. 22 from Clarksburg, W. Va., to Pittsburgh, Pa., and (2) substitute ch. 33 for ch. 73 in Youngstown, Ohio, deleting ch. 47 from Pittsburgh and adding chs. 22 and 73 to that city and ch. 79 for ch. 22 in Clarksburg. At the same time, WTVQ (TV) Pittsburgh was asked to show cause why it should not shift from ch. 47 to either ch. 22 or ch. 73, and WXTV (TV) Youngstown to change from ch. 73 to ch. 33. The first of these proposals was made by Pittsburgh's educational tv station, ch. 13 WQED (TV), to enable ch. 22 (commercial) also to be used for educational programs in Pittsburgh area. The second proposal was made by ch. 73 WXTV (TV) Youngstown, which claims to be at a disadvantage because of lower uhf channel service in its area. Chairman John Doerfer and Comr. Ford dissented. Comr. Robert Lee was absent for the day. Chairman Doerfer was absent for the Walla Walla, Wash., allocation. Objections Filed at Commission To Storer Experimental V Bid Storer Broadcasting's petition to construct an experimental station in the WilmingtonPhiladelphia area on ch. 12 to broadcast the regular program schedule of Storer's ch. 12 WVUE (TV) Wilmington, [Government, Feb. 24] ran into opposition from ch. 12 WNBF-TV Binghamton, N. Y., sister station of WFIL-TV Philadelphia. WNBF-TV states that the Storer proposal is contrary to the public interest because "construction and operation of the proposed facilities at the site specified will reduce the mileage separation" between WVUE and WNBF-TV "substantially below the minimum" permitted by the FCC. The experimental station would also cause objectionable interference to WNBF-TV, and the proposed station does not offer a "valid program of research and experimentation." WNBF-TV feels the WVUE experiment is "subterfuge." WPRO-TV Providence, R. I., has also objected to the experimental station, stating that it will cause "objectionable interference". WPRO-TV wants either a denial, hearing, or the limitation on Storer to confine its experiment to no-interference hours or to modify its proposal so no interference will be caused WPRO-TV. WGKA-AM-FM Programs Proper WGKA-AM-FM Atlanta was reported in Broadcasting as one of nine radio stations receiving a letter of inquiry from the FCC regarding purported program imbalance [Closed Circuit, March 31]. This was incorrect. WGKA, which runs a good music program operation, was informed that its application for license renewal was received too late for processing. There was no question of programming imbalance. FCC staff has WGKA application under review now. Broadcasting