NAEB Newsletter (July 1957)

GREETINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT —Burton Paula On June 3, the NAEB filed with the Federal Com¬ munications Commission a statement opposing the Commission’s proposal of April 26 to abandon the Television Allocations Table which has governed the assignment of TV channels since 1952. Our posi¬ tion was determined by a mail vote of the Board of Directors. Since the future of ETV may be affected by these proceedings, I should like to review the sit¬ uation briefly for Newsletter readers. On April 11, 1952, in its Sixth Report and Order, the FCC set up the present Allocation Table. This provided for 2,053 stations, of which 242 were to be noncommercial educational stations. Subsequently the number of educational reservations was increased to 258. In its proposal of April 26, 1957, the Com¬ mission summarized as follows the reasons for orig¬ inally preferring fixed assignments to proceeding on a case-by-case basis: “The Table would make for a more efficient use of the available channels. It would' better protect the in¬ terests of the smaller communities and rural areas by preventing preemption of available channels by the larger cities. It would be an effective means of re¬ serving channels for educational purposes. It would expedite the processing of applications.” For us educators, of course, the Table was of par¬ ticular importance for its reservation of channels for noncommercial educational stations. The JCET was created to secure these reservations, and continued in order to safeguard and activate them. Then, on April 26, 1957, the FCC proposed the abandonment of the Allocations Table on the grounds that the reasons given in the Sixth Report and Order were no longer valid. In its place, the Commission proposed a variation of the so-called “Craven Plan,” which would accept applications for new TV stations on any channel, subject only to specified mileage separation rules and some other technical require¬ ments. But there were to be two important qualifica¬ tions: all educational reservations were to be retained, as were fixed assignments for stations within 250 miles of the Canadian and Mexican borders. Because of education’s tremendous stake in TV, any changes in the Allocations Table become a matter of great concern to the NAEB. The FCC’s April 26th proposal was the principal item we discussed at the JCET meeting of May 22, in Washington. The next day I reviewed the entire matter with Leonard Marks, one of our attorneys. On May 28, I requested the reactions of all NAEB officers and directors. Those Board members replying (Adams, Broderick, Bronson, Coleman, Hiller, McBride, Schenkkan, Schooley and Weld) agreed with me that we should oppose the deletion of fixed assignments. Accordingly, Marks filed the NAEB’s Comments on June 3. The high points of our statement are briefly summarized below. At the outset, we noted with approval that the Commission had agreed that it was necessary to con¬ tinue the educational reservations, and we pledged ourselves to do everything possible “to make the fullest use of these reserved channels with the greatest speed possible.” Nevertheless, we still felt that our “interests and the interests of the public at large are jeopardized by the abandonment, even in part, of the television Table of Assignments. Particularly the Commission’s proposal would abandon the reser¬ vations, established in 1952, for smaller communities of the United States. The Association feels that the abandonment of these reservations would be viewed by some as the first step toward abandonment of reservations for educational broadcasting.” We pointed out that, in establishing the Table of Assignments, the FCC had indicated “that it viewed the reservation of educational broadcasting,” and that we believed the adoption of this proposal could well be “the first step toward the abandonment of these principles.” We also stated that the elimination of the Alloca¬ tions Table would lead to increased pressure for VHF stations, and the lessening of protection for UHF. The elimination of UHF would make it impossible for many educational broadcasters to have TV stations at all. Finally we said that, even though the Com¬ mission proposed no lowering of technical standards, we feared that, without fixed assignments, the pres¬ sure for new stations would lead to the degradation of service through the lowering of mileage separation requirements. In any event, we concluded, nothing should be done to alter technical standards until the TASO study is completed. The JCET has also filed comments opposing the Commission’s proposal. We knew this when we drew up our brief, but decided to file anyway in order to become a party to the proceedings. Commercial broadcasters are divided in their reactions. CBS stated that the proposal is “a sub¬ stantial step in the right direction,” and urged that it be carried out as soon as possible, though with strict observance of present mileage separations. NBC, on the other hand, took a stand in opposition. ABC sup¬ ported the proposal in principle, but counseled delay. The Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. asked for fur¬ ther study, particularly in view of the current TASO inquiry. Individual station reaction is divided about 50-50. It, of course, is impossible to forecast the eventual outcome. Nevertheless, the NAEB took a position. 2 NEWSLETTER