Television digest with AM-FM reports (Jan-Dec 1951)

are in accordance with the Commission’s proposals in Appendix A. Accordingly, in the absence of any issue with respect to these separations, the Commission proposes to lift the ‘freeze’ with respect to the above Territories without waiting to reach a final determination on all the assignments proposed in Appendix C. “(b) The Commission will determine whether any issue has been raised with respect to the Commission’s proposed assignments in the UHF band. In the absence of such issue, and where serious procedural or practical objections do not exist, the Commission will consider lifting the ‘freeze’ on applications which specifically request a UHF channel. “(c) The Commission will determine whether any issue has been raised with respect to applications by existing television licensees and permittees to increase power in accordance with the proposals set forth in Appendix A. In the absence of such issue the Commission will consider lifting the ‘freeze’ so far as existing stations are concerned on a case-to-case basis where it appears that a grant of increased power not in excess of the maximum specified in Appendix A will not affect channel assignment proposals offered by the Commission or by interested parties and will not unduly restrict the Commission’s flexibility in reaching final determinations with respect to assignments still in issue. “(d) Should the Commission take action in accordance with the views expressed in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) above, a reasonable period will be provided for the filing of appropriate applications.” 5. In advancing the above proposals for a partial lifting of the “freeze” the Commission recognized that the factors which called for a continuance of the “freeze” on the construction of new VHF television stations in the United States were not the same, in all respects, as those relating to the Territories, the UHF band, and increased power for existing stations. The Commission was of the opinion that under certain conditions a partial lifting of the “freeze” might be effected in the three instances specified in paragraph “10” of the Third Notice. However, with respect to the construction of new television stations in the VHF band, it became evident that a change in a channel assignment in a particular city, or the retention of a particular assignment might have a chain reaction on assignments in areas hundreds of miles away. For example, assuming the mileage separations specified in Appendix A, if a channel were changed in City X, it might require a change in co-channel assignments within a 180-mile radius from City X, as well as in adjacent channel assignments within 70 miles of City X, and possible shifting of other channels. These channel changes might require corresponding shifting of channels located within a 180-mile radius from the second group of channels. In the same way, if construction permits were issued for new stations in City X either on the existing channels or on the proposed channels, it might have the effect of freezing channel assignments within 180 miles, which, in turn, might freeze assignments within another 180 miles, ond so on. It followed, therefore, that any crystallization of channel assignments resulting from the authorization and construction of new television stations in particular areas might remove the element of flexibility, an element which is essential if the Commission is to remain free to adopt an assignment table based on the soundest engineering principles. 6. On June 15, 1951, in a “Memorandum Opinion and Order” (FCC 51-635) the Commission designated for oral argument questions relating to its authority to issue a Table of Assignments as part of its Rules and to reserve channels for non-commercial educational stations. Thereafter, on June 21, 1951, the Commission issued its “Third Report of Commission” (FCC 51-640) in which it explained why it could not, at that time effectuate the purposes of paragraph “10” of the Third Notice. In that Report the Commission pointed out that because of the existence of substantive and procedural objections it would take no action at that time to lift the “freeze” with respect to applications for UHF channels; and that, pending the above mentioned oral argument, it would take no action at that time to lift the “freeze” in the Territories and to permit existing stations to increase power. Subsequently, on July 13, 1951, the Commission issued its “Memorandum Opinion” (FCC 51-709) in which it concluded that it had legal authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to “(1) Prescribe as part of its rules and subject to change through rule making a table specifying the channels upon which television station assignments may be made in specified communities and areas; and (2) designate and reserve certain of the assignments provided in such table for use by non-commercial educational television stations.” In view of these conclusions we have again considered the possibilities suggested in paragraph “10(a)” and “(c)” of our Third Notice. And we have concluded that it is now possible, consistent with the basic criteria set out in paragraph “10(c)” to take certain steps permitting some increase in power for existing stations. A separate further report will be issued with respect to the suggestion contained in paragraph “10(a)”. 7. In suggesting the possibility, in the Third Notice, of permitting increased power for existing stations we recognized that this might be accomplished without encountering problems such as those which would arise if we permitted new stations to be constructed in areas having no service at present. Without prejudice to those areas not now having stations, we would be providing for a better service to the public from existing stations and would be creating a situation in which, as a general matter, existing stations could operate on a more nearly equal basis from the viewpoint of coverage — a condition which would contribute materially to the healthy development of the new television industry. 8. In paragraph “10(c)” of the Third Notice the criteria we enunciated were, in essence, that increases in power for existing stations would be permitted if, upon consideration of all comments, we could permit such increases on a “case-to-case” basis in a manner which would not affect channel assignment proposals offered by the Commission or by interested parties in this proceeding, and would not unduly restrict the Commission’s flexibility in reaching final determinations with respect to assignments still in issue. Out of approximately 700 comments filed by interested parties pursuant to the Commission’s Third Notice, only two comments opposed the Commission’s proposal to increase power of existing stations. Neither of the two opposing comments advanced a single reason as to why the proposal should not be effectuated.^ From a review of the many comments and oppositions heretofore filed in this proceeding we do not believe it to be advisable at this point in the proceeding to permit increases to the powers specified in Appendix A. However, the Commission is of the opinion that some action can be taken during this interim period to accomplish in part the basic purpose expressed in paragraph “10(c)” of that Notice. The Commission proposes to continue its present policy of considering applications for modification of existing facilities which request changes in transmitters, antennas or locations therefor, under the terms of the existing “freeze” policy as described in paragraph “3” herein. We would also provide, on an interim basis, for a more efficient use of authorized stations through the granting of special temporary authority (STA) permitting temporary increases in power within the framework of the Commission’s existing Rules and Standards “which will not affect channel assignment proposals offered by the Commission or by interested parties and will not unduly restrict the 1 The comments referred to are those of Radio Virginia, Inc., WXGI, Richmond, Virginia, and of Radio Kentucky, Inc., WKYW, Louisville, Kentucky. These comments, in pertinent parts, are as follows : Radio Virginia, Inc.: ''2) In general, we wish to register opposition to these phases of the plan: . . . C — The plan to grant power Increases on the VHF channels.” Radio Kentucky, Inc.: “Radio Kentucky, Inc., opposes the granting of further power increases to VHF channels.” 2