We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
(1) Whether it is possible to locate the new transmitter so as to meet minimum transmitter spacings.
(2) Whether, in cases where it is necessary to move the channel from another city, there is greater need for the channel in the area to which it is proposed to be assigned.
(3) Whether the addition of a new VHF assignment would be consistent with the objective of improving the opportunities for effective competition among a greater number of stations.
32. In appropriate instances it may be desirable, in order to attain the objectives stated in the preceding paragraph, to add an additional VHF assignment which meets all requirements of the present rules with the exception that the minimum spacing from the city where the new assignment is proposed would not be met. It would be feasible, however, in these instances, by appropriate location of the new transmitter, to meet all transmitter spacing requirements. Since it is the spacing from the transmitter that is critical, we believe, that it will be in the public interest to relax the present rules in order to permit new assignments that can be utilized within reasonable distance from the city in conformity with the minimum transmitter spacing requirement. In this way additional service can be provided without departing from the engineering standards.
Implementation of Interim Revisions of the Table of Assignments
33. This proceeding has served the purpose for which it was instituted, i.e., determination of the basic lines on which revisions of the existing television allocation plan should be considered. It can therefore now be terminated. We announced in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making adopted on Nov. 10, 1955, that after this determination had been made we would proceed to the consideration of proposals for such channel reassignments as might be made in conformity with the general policies adopted herein.
34. Accordingly, we are adopting today a number of Notices of Proposed Rule Making in which we will consider a series of proposed channel reassignments which appear to merit consideration in conformity with the objectives outlined in this Report and Order. For example, in a number of communities, including Madison ^ and Elmira,® we are proposing to delete a VHF channel or reserve it for educational use. It appears on the basis of the facts before us that such action offers reasonable prospect for improving the opportunities for effective competition among a greater number of stations in these areas. In other communities, such as Fresno * and Peoria,* we are proposing to shift VHF channels to other communities, which would have the added advantage of making additional comparable facilities available in VHF markets. In several other areas, such as New Orleans * and Albany,® it appears that similar objectives can be achieved by deleting or shifting one of the two VHF channels assigned in the area.
35. In communities such as Charleston and DuluthSuperior, which have two VHF channels assigned and no UHF stations in operation, we find that it is possible to add a third VHF channel by “drop-in” or by shifting an unused educational assignment for which there appears to be no realistic prospect of early use. In Miami,® which already has three commercial VHF assignments, we are proposing to add a 4th which it appears can be accomplished in accordance with minimum transmitter spacing
^ Chairman McConnaughey and Commissioners Doerfer and Mack dissented from this proposed rule making.
‘ Commissioners Doerfer and Mack dl.ssented from this proposed rule making.
Chairman McConnaughey and Comrs. Doerfer and Mack dissented from this proposed rule making. Comrs. Webster, Bartley and Lee concurred but wo>iId propose the deletion of Channel 0 also.
’ Comml-ssloners Web.ster and Mack dl.ssented from this proposed rule making.
requirements. We believe this course of action is more meritorious than deletion of two or all VHF channels from Miami, as some petitioners and parties to this proceeding have proposed. Where a 4th VHF channel can be employed without violating our engineering standards, deletion of VHF channels would not appear to be warranted.
36. In some markets such as Toledo, where there are only two commercial VHF assignments and no UHF stations operating, we find that despite the apparent capacity of such markets to support additional stations, it is not possible to assign an additional VHF channel because there are none available which would meet minimum transmitter spacings. Nor would it be practicable to encourage the expansion of local services on locally assigned UHF channels by eliminating a local VHF assignment because, apart from the absence of significant UHF conversion in the area, the reception of signals from VHF cities located elsewhere (in this case, Detroit) would make it doubtful that effective deintermixture could be achieved.
37. Parties interested in these proceedings will have full opportunity to submit comments in support of or in opposition to these proposals, and to submit counterproposals. The proposals put out for rule making at this time do not cover all the amendments to the present Table of Assignments which have been proposed in petitions now before us. We will endeavor to act on all petitions as rapidly as possible, including those already before us which have not yet been acted on and in those on which rule making proceedings have been initiated but not yet concluded. Parties desiring to file petitions for additional or alternative amendments to the Table of Assignments may do so.
38. In order to assist the Commission in evaluating proposals for channel reassignments which involve the removal of an existing VHF assignment for which an application is on file or a construction permit has been granted, it is requested that the parties furnish data, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 39 and 40, showing the service of all stations in the area involved.
39. As the Commission pointed out in the Sixth Report and Order and other documents, there is no available means for predicting precisely the service areas of a specific television station which will take into account time variations and variations in location, with particular reference to uneven terrain. Propagation data gathered since the Sixth Report and Order are now available. These latest data, as analyzed by the Commission’s staff and others, should be used, since they improve somewhat the predictions which can now be made in the average case. The new data and methods for employing them are set out in Appendix A attached to this Report and Order.
40. The data supplied should be based on the following assumptions;
(1) In computing coverage, stations should be assumed to be operating vyith maximum power at 1000 feet above average terrain, with the transmitter located in the center of the prinicpal community, except where the minimum transmitter separations proposed require transmitter location elsewhere.
(2) 1000 feet antenna height above average terrain should be used for all pertinent directions.
(3) Service should be drawn for the limit of the Grade B contour as limited by noise or interference, as the case may be.
(4) The extent of Grade B service should be computed in accordance with the tables set out in Appendix A.
(5) Only co-channel interference need be considered.
(6) Single station method of interference should be employed, i.e., the station causing the greatest penetration is assumed to mask the interference of other stations.
(7) In computing interference or service, all stations presently on the air or authorized, and pending applications, should be taken into account, whether UHF or VHF. However, where a station that is not yet operating is considered, this fact should be indicated.
If the parties desire., data based on other assumptions may be submitted in addition to the foregoing.
6