Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

' and adjacent-channel minimum spacing requirements. The approximately 70 vhf station assignments currently unapplied for are in areas with very low population density, and these assignments cannot be transferred to areas where additional stations are in active demand. Any possi Ibilities for dropping-in additional assignments, or moving unused assignments, are so limited as to be considered practically insignificant. One obvious method of increasing the number of stations in the vhf band is to reduce station spacing requirements. This technique can be used to remedy current shortages in • a number of markets. It cannot, however, provide sufficient outlets to satisfy the long-run, expanding needs of television as set forth in our criteria. This conclusion is based directly on test plans embodying three different approaches to the distribution of assignments within 12 vhf channels. In one approach all existing vhf assignments were left undisturbed, and new assignments were squeezed in at reduced spacing. This plan demonstrated that any sizeable increase in the number of outlets could be obtained only through drastic reduction in station spacing. Because of the geographical distribution pattern of cities, a large increase in assignments is obtainable only at minimum co-channel spacings in the neighborhood of 100 miles. With such spacing, the usable signal of the squeezed-in stations would extend only a few miles in the direction of operating stations on the same channel, if full protection were afforded the service areas of existing stations. The alternative would be to reduce the service range of established stations in order to provide an economically feasible service area for the new stations. Under this latter alternative, coverage of both the new and the established stations would be limited effectively to 30-35 miles. (The technical parameters used in the test assignment plans are shown in Appendix B.) Such shrinkage in the service areas of individual stations results in “white” areas where mutual interference destroys service now available. The rural and fringe population residing in these areas would be deprived effectively of television service unless or until new stations were estab. fished nearby. Thus, a plan which requires general reduction in station spacing may delete some or all of the 1 1 program services for an indefinite period in many homes where such program services are now available. Moreover, despite its many unrealistic spacings, the test plan did not contain sufficient outlets to meet the Commission’s criteria. It fell short of providing even four stations to each of the top 100 markets. The greatest weakness of the plan was its inability to meet the long-run needs of communities for local outlets. It could not satisfy even the current needs of these communities. For example, it did not permit sufficient vhf assignments to replace the assignments of all operating uhf stations in the same communities. It was unable, likewise, to provide a vhf facility in each community where a uhf permit is currently held, or where uhf operation has been attempted and failed. Genei’ally, the same shortcomings are evident in two other plans of assignment within the 12 vhf channels. In one of these plans, less extreme cuts in station spacing were used but the present frequency assignments of operating vhf stations were extensively reshuffled as though the television industry were starting from scratch. While this plan was more efficient than the other alternatives, it too involved reduced station service areas and insufficient room for the growth of competitive stations in the larger markets or of local outlets in smaller communities. The third approach also started from scratch without regard to the present frequency assignments of stations; it attempted to assign channels in clusters rather than individually as a means of maximizing channel efficiency. This principle could not be applied generally, however, because of the variegated pattern of distances between cities, the impracticability of assigning the same number of stations uniformly to all communities, and the limitations involved in protecting against adjacent channel interference. This approach proved little more than an exercise: it would disrupt the present vhf television structure without significant compensating benefits. I In our analysis, we also considered the possibilities of using precision offset and directional antennas. Based on the latest available data, it appears that neither of these techniques can overcome the inherent limitations of a 12-channeI system. Theoretically, with precision offset co-channel separation could be reduced from 170 miles to 140 miles without reducing the service areas of the stations. This calculation is based on theoretical computations; it has not been subjected to the rigors of general field testing involving a large group of stations. More important, a reduction in minimum spacing of this order cannot make possible the needed flexibilty and expansiveness of assignments. As stated above, a significant increase in the number of assignments is possible only if co-channel spacing is reduced to 100 miles, but at this level precision offset is relatively ineffective in maintaining adequate service areas. With respect to directional antennas, it has not yet been demonstrated that they can be relied upon as an allocation tool for reducing minimum station spacing on an overall basis. A further study of this problem has been started by TASO. In summary, it is virtually impossible within the confines of 12 channels to have both sufficient competitive outlets in the major markets and local outlets in a large number of communities. A 12-channel television system is inadequate, lowever the spacings are juggled. If additional assignments are made to some of the larger markets, this necessarily restricts the potentialities for local outlets or educational assignments in other communities. For all of the above reasons, the Commission has concluded that the allocations dilemma cannot be resolved on a long-range basis within the 12 vhf channels. Television Within a Deintermixed Vhf-Uhf System As described earlier, the general inability of uhf stations to compete in markets with vhf stations has led to the present critical television allocation situation. To remedy the incompatibility of uhf, the Commission in 1956 undertook to explore the interim possibilities of improving the opportunities for effective competition among television stations, pending a long-range allocation solution. The program involved a study of the feasibility of converting to non-commercial assignments or eliminating some or all of the vhf channel assignments in designated cities having uhf stations, and the transfer of the displaced vhf channels, to the extent feasible, to wholly vhf areas where they would increase the number of vhf services. In assessing deintermixture, the Commission stressed its limited utility in fostering the fuller utilization of uhf channels on a nationwide basis. Hopefully, deintermixture could serve to increase the number of competitive outlets in some communities, establish a core of viable uhf markets, and halt further deterioration in the uhf industry. However, the Commission in its Report of June 1956 pointed out the following shortcomings inherent in an extensive nationwide program of deintermixture: the undesirability of eliminating vhf assignments in areas with little uhf set saturation; the penetration of most areas with signals from vhf-only markets and the consequent inability to carve out significant areas in which uhf could grow; and the likelihood that elimination of local vhf assignments would create substantial “white” areas, unless the uhf broadcaster could somehow substantially extend his service area or unless the public in these areas undertook the additional cost of erecting high receiving antennas. As a result of these considerations, the Commission described deintermixture as an “interim” measure, pending adoption of a long-range solution. Experience with deintermixture in the intervening years has demonstrated that it is ineffectual as a national allocation policy. One or another pertinent consideration has served to narrow the possible communities in which deintermixture could be justified in the public interest: the opportunity to add vhf assignments at approved minimum spacings through simple “drop-ins,” rearrangement of assignments in other nearby communities, or relocation of station antennas; the danger of creating “white” areas; the availability of multiple vhf signals from nearby major centers; unfavorable terrain; or insufficient uhf set conversion. Procedural delays flowing from adjudicatory requirements in those instances where the Commission has ordered removal of a vhf assignment also have served to minimize the immediate benefits expected from deintermixture. Nevertheless, in line with our decision to reexamine and reevaluate all possible allocation measures, studies were 3