NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1944)

reports to the other. I do not claim to know the proper definition of scope of Panel l’s legitimate activities but it seems obvious to me that the formulation of a recommen¬ dation with respect to a standard fundamental to the establishment of an adequate FM broadcast allocation structure is not one of them. This is clearly the business of Panel 5. “I respectfully request that this matter be considered at the earliest possible date and a decision rendered on the question of jurisdiction. “Sincerely yours, C. M. Jansky, Jr., Chairman, Panel 5, FM Broadcasting.” Dr. Alfred N. Goldsmith, Chairman of Panel 1, who received a copy of Mr. Jansky’s letter has written to Dr. Baker expressing his views on the question of jurisdiction as follows: “Dear Dr. Baker: “Mr. Jansky has kindly .sent me a copy of his letter of August 16, 1944 to you wherein he questions the propriety of Panel 1 or any of its Committees studying and reportingon the channel width which may appropriately be assigned to fm broadcasting transmissions. He raises the question of ‘jurisdiction’ with respect to the right of Panel 1 to formulate a recommendation on this subject for report to the RTPB, and takes the stand that ‘the formulation of a recommendation with respect to a standard fundamental to the establishment of an adequate fm broadcast alloca¬ tion structure’ is not within the scope of Panel l’s ‘legiti¬ mate activities.’ He asks further that the matter be promptly considered and a decision be rendered on the question of ‘jurisdiction.’ “ SECTION 1. RTPB Organization, Procedure, and Direc¬ tives. “In Section II: Objectives of the RTPB Organization and Procedure, it is stated that these objectives include the formulation of ‘plans for the technical future of the radio industry and services, including frequency alloca¬ tions and systems standardization’ ... In Section III : Functions, it is added that the ‘RTPB will develop such studies, investigations, recommendations, and standards as are required to attain its objectives.’ . . . Section IV : Panels, requires that each of the Panels ‘shall concentrate its efforts on an assigned task.’ . . . Thereafter, each Panel shall report its findings, the publications of which can be delayed but not withheld by the RTPB. “The official scope of Panel 1: Spectrum Utilization is: ‘the analytical study of the factors pertinent to the most effective use of the transmission medium.’ In plain lan¬ guage, this can mean only the study of the factors govern¬ ing the wise utilization of frequency bands in various parts of the radio spectrum. To use something effectively, it is necessary to know who wishes to use it, for what purpose and to what end, how it is proposed to be used, what supplies of the desired article are available, what characteristics the available supplies may have, and how best to fit in general terms the demand for the article to the supply. Translated into terms of the job of Panel 1, this means that this Panel must know what services desire to use any band of frequencies, in what way such services propose to use the band in question, what carrier frequencies are available for each type of transmission, and what are the operating characteristics of each such band of frequencies. This is precisely what Panel 1 has properly been doing. “SECTION 2. Operations of Panel 1 : Spectrum Utilization. “The aim of Panel 1 is primarily to be of special service to Panel 2: Frequency Allocation, by supplying as much analytical and graphical material as possible to assist Panel 2 in carrying out its task of finally recommending what channels and bands of frequency shall be assigned to each particular service. “Following the ideas expressed in Section 1 above, we have set up two Committees in Panel 1 as follows: “Committee 1 : Service Requirements. This Committee was charged with the task of securing from each of the service Panels (Panels 4-13, which are charged with studying and setting forth their concept of the needs of August 25, 1944 — 294 each of their respective services) a statement of the names and needs of the various services, and as many engineer¬ ing data as would support the frequency claims for each of the services. It is in the interest of each service to make the reasons for its frequency requests clear on an engineering basis, each Panel being an agent of a Radio TECHNICAL Planning Board. In fact, in Section II of the RTPB Organization and Procedure, it is stated that ‘such planning shall be restricted to engineering considerations.’ “ Committee 2: Carrier -Frequency Capabilities. This Committee is assigned the task of studying the available carrier frequencies and their transmission characteristics, the variation in such characteristics, noise levels, and allied pertinent topics. This also is strictly within the proper scope of the Panel 1 directive. “ SECTION 3. Questionnaire from Committee 1 Panel 1 “Carrying out its task, Committee 1 addressed an appro¬ priate and comprehensive questionnaire to the Chairman of each of the service Panels 4-13. In the main, the responses of the active Panels have been reasonably com¬ plete and helpful. In most instances engineering data supporting the statements made in the answer to the questionnaire were available from the Panel. “I regret to state that Panel 5, despite repeated courteous requests to its Chairman, has never submitted such engineering data. At one time we were told by its Chairman that Panel 5 had to give priority to other tasks. At other times it was indicated by implication and omission that the statements of conclusions of Panel 5 represented what was essentially a final matter and one which should be accepted without questioning as to its engineering bases (which inferentially had been handled by Panel 3 though the corresponding material was not at the disposal of Panel 1 nor included in the Panel 5 minutes). “It is my belief that Panel 5 is under no obligation to furnish any information or help whatever to Panel 1 unless it so desires. Nor are the findings of Panel 5 subject to review or judgment by Panel 1. On the other hand. Panel 1 must draw its conclusions on the basis of the best engineering information available to it; and if it unfortunately fails to secure such information from Panel 5, it can only develop such information as it needs for its purposes and within its scope by means of its own efforts. It cannot utilize assertions unsupported by any available engineering data. “Accordingly, Panel 1 (through Committee 1) has studied such matters and has prepared a report on the channel widths required for fm broadcasting from a technical viewpoint. It will probably have to do the same in other instances in order properly to carry out its tasks. “SECTION J. General Purpose of Panels 1-3 “It is thought that the Chairman of Panel 5 is not clear as to the purpose of Panels 1 and 2 particularly, and as to their correct relationship to the service Panels 4-13. “Consider, for example, Panel 2: Frequency Allocation. This Panel obviously will have to make decisions in the form of recommendations as to the channel widths and total number of channels allocated to each service, as well as the position of such channels in the frequency spectrum. If that were not its purpose, why have such a Panel at all? Would the Chairman of Panel 5 then take the stand that the directive of Panel 2 requires it unreservedly to accept, without technical proof, the fre¬ quency-allocation proposals of Panel 5 or any other Panel? The tabulations already prepared by Panel i already show a large number of conflicts between the allocation requests of the various service Panels. The job of recommending an intelligent adjustment of these is definitely that of Panel 2. And it is the job of Panel 1 to assist Panel 2 in its task by every rational means. This is just what Panel 1 has been doing. And it is clearly what its direc¬ tive requires it to do. “SECTION 5. Discrepencies between Panel Reports “It would of course be an admirable thing if all the Panels were to have recommendations and requests which were fully consistent with each other and in no case in conflict. There is little likelihood, to put it mildly, that this is possible. The best that seems practicable is that each