BY LAND MOBILE STATIONS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA
Docket
No. 18261; RM-566
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
23 F.C.C.2d 325
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 70-521
May
20, 1970 Adopted
JUDGES:
BY THE
COMMISSION: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. LEE AND H. REX LEE DISSENTING AND ISSUING
STATEMENTS; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND
ISSUING A STATEMENT
OPINION:
[*325]
INTRODUCTION
1. On July 26, 1968, the Commission issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public comments on a proposal for the
geographic sharing by the land mobile radio services, n1 selectively and within the largest 25 urbanized
areas of the country, of part of the spectrum space between 470 and 512 MHz now
allocated exclusively to television broadcasting (UHF-TV channels 14 through
20). F.C.C. 68-743, 33 F.R. 10943. Because we anticipated widespread interest
in this important proposal, more than usual time was allowed for filing
comments and replies, and extensions were granted so that [*326]
the comment period closed on April 30, 1969. n2 Also, in view of the important
issues raised in the written comments and the sharp diversity of views, the
Commission heard oral argument en banc (in this proceeding as well as in docket
18262) on January 22 and 23, 1970.
n1 The group of radio services
usually referred to as land mobile radio services includes the public safety
group (police, fire, highway, forestry-conservation, local government, special
emergency); the industrial group (power, petroleum, forest products, motion
picture, relay press, special industrial, business, manufacturers, and
telephone maintenance); the land transportation group (railroad, motor carrier,
taxicab, automobile emergency); the domestic public group (common carrier
mobile radiotelephone and signaling service); and the broadcast auxiliary group
(remote pickup). In this proceeding,
however, our proposal was limited to the public safety, industrial, and land
transportation radio services where well over 90 percent of the land mobile
radio facilities are authorized. Thus,
the discussion that follows refers mainly to those services, although some of
the problems discussed hereinafter exist to a degree in the other land mobile
radio services also. Indeed, the
National Association of Radiotelephone Systems, the trade association of
non-wire-line (miscellaneous) carriers, has urged favorable action on this
proposal and has argued that part of any additional spectrum space allocated to
the land mobile radio services should be made available in the domestic public
radio service.
n2 The notice called for comments by
Dec. 2, 1968, and for replies thereto by Jan. 31, 1969. On request, the comment period was extended
to Feb. 3, 1969, and the reply period to Mar. 31, 1969, 33 F.R. 17855. On
further request, the reply period was extended again to Apr. 30, 1969, 34 F.R.
5385.
2. Comments and replies were filed by more than
110 parties representing largely land mobile and broadcast interests (see app.
A attached hereto) and more than 40 parties participated in the oral argument
(see app. B). As we already noted, this
has been a sharply controversial proceeding.
Briefly, the comments filed by broadcasters, their representatives and
others (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the broadcast comments) took the
position that additional radio spectrum is not required to solve the congestion
problems in the land mobile radio services, that our geographic sharing
proposal is not feasible in that it would cause widespread interference to
television reception and that, in any event, spectrum space now allocated to
television broadcasting should not be allocated for land mobile use. On the other hand, comments filed on behalf
of land mobile interests argued that only the reallocation of additional
frequencies to the land mobile services would solve the severe frequency
shortage problem in those services; but that since the Commission proposal in
this proceeding would not provide meaningful relief to the land mobile radio
services, they urged that our proposal be modified and a modified sharing plan
be adopted as a first step in a program looking toward eventual reallocation of
the spectrum space between 470 and 512 MHz (UHF-TV channels 14 through 20) to
the land mobile radio services on a nationwide basis.
3. In our consideration of the various issues
raised, we have taken into account, in addition to the record of this
proceeding, a number of studies conducted in recent years dealing with the land
mobile frequency problem, including the report of the Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) on a contract study it conducted for the Commission. [Dayharsh and Vincent, A Study of Land
Mobile Spectrum Utilization (interim and final report, hereafter referred to as
the SRI report).] It has been urged by broadcasters, both in the written
comments and in oral argument, that the Commission should seek more information
on various issues before reaching final decision. We disagree. The land
mobile frequency problem has been studied by the Commission and outside
organizations for over 13 years n3
and the [*327] problems faced in the land mobile radio
services are urgent enough to require decisions without further delay.
n3 Included among the various
studies are: "The Commission's Inquiry in Docket 11977," see
"Allocation of Frequencies Between 25 to 890 Mc/s, Report and Order,"
2 R.R. 2d 1513; the work of the Advisory Committee for the Land Mobile Radio
Services (ACLMRS), see Report of the ACLMRS, Nov. 30, 1967; the report of the
Joint Technical Advisory Committee of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and the Electronic Industries Association, Spectrum
Engineering, the Key to Progress, 1966; the report of the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice and the report of
the Task Force on Science and Technology to that Commission prepared by the
Institute of Defense Analysis; the Report of President's Advisory Committee on
Civil Disorders (1968): the hearing record of Subcommittee No. 5 of the House
Select Committee on Small Business, see hearings on the Allocation of Radio
Frequency and Its Effect on Small Business, Before Subcommittee No. 5 of the
Select Committee on Small Business, 90th Cong. second sess., and the
subcommittee's report thereon, H. Rept. 1978 (Dec. 23, 1968); also H. Rept.
91-982 entitled, "The Allocation of Radio Frequency Spectrum and Its
Impact on Small Business (1970)"; and the report of the Telecommunications
Science Panel of the Commerce Technical Advisory Board of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, see Electromagnetic Spectrum Utilization -- The Silent Crisis,
October 1966.
The Need for
Additional Radio Spectrum Space in the Land Mobile Radio Services
4. Inherent in our proposal in this proceeding
and those in docket 18262 was the premise that the various land mobile radio
services needed additional radio frequency spectrum in order to relieve
existing congestion and to provide for anticipated growth of land mobile
communications. This was based on,
among other factors, our consideration of this matter for well over a decade,
on our day-to-day experience in administering these services; on the numerous
petitions for relief filed from time to time by representatives of land mobile
radio users (such as RM-251, RM-370, and RM-560); on innumerable complaints
from individual radio users detailing increasing difficulties in operating
their radio facilities due to congestion or their inability to find frequencies
upon which to expand or improve vital public safety communications systems; as
well as on studies of this problem conducted by outside parties. (See, for example, footnote 3.)
5. The broadcast comments disagreed with that
premise. As we mentioned, they argued
that there is no need to allocate more frequency spectrum to the land mobile
radio services because they claimed existing instances of communications congestion
are not caused by shortage of frequencies, but rather by deficiencies in the
management and use of the land mobile frequency spectrum. The Association of Maximum Service
Telecasters, Inc. (AMST), for example, submitted voluminous material purporting
to show that artificial frequency shortages are created by outmoded policies,
such as the system of block allocations which it alleges results in gross
underutilization of the land mobile spectrum; inadequate frequency coordination
and licensing policies under which the applications are rubberstamped, without
consideration of the applicant's relative need and almost without review of
technical parameters; the use of excessive power in land mobile radio systems
without regard to the users coverage needs; the proliferation of small and
inefficient public safety and private radio communications systems; inadequate
information and data base, particularly with respect to actual channel usage,
which frustrates the frequency selection process and forces the Commission to
accept inflated demands on the part of land mobile radio users, and other such
causes. Broadcast interests argued
further that the report of the Stanford Research Institute supported these
allegations and demonstrated that there is no shortage of frequencies in the
land mobile radio services.
6. Therefore, they claimed that there is no
need to allocate additional frequency spectrum and the Commission should
terminate immediately the proceedings in both dockets 18261 and 18262, and
should adopt a plan for fundamental reforms, both long range and short range,
in the allocation, coordination, licensing, and management of the spectrum now
allocated to the land mobile radio services.
The reforms suggested, include abolishment or modification of the block
allocation system in the land mobile radio services; strengthening of the
coordination process to include consideration of, among other [*328]
things, priority of need of each applicant; a program to include
monitoring in order to determine the actual occupancy n4 of land mobile channels and implementation of SRI's
equal channel occupancy recommendations; consolidation of primary radio
activities of the police in the 150-162 m.c.p.s. band and removal of low
priority commercial and industrial radio users to the 450-470 and 900
m.c.p.s. regions; consolidation of the
small and inefficient radio systems into larger common user systems; and
introduction of such technological innovations as multiplexing, trunking, nonvoice
systems such as mobile teleprinters; the cellular concept of base station
siting, and other techniques. These
changes, the broadcast comments argued, will not only solve the existing
congestion problem, but would provide enough frequencies for the future. n5
n4 The broadcast interests have
argued that a full assessment of land mobile spectrum utilization requires, not
only monitoring to determine the kind of usage. Their point is that only through knowledge of message content can
the purpose of the transmissions be determined and an evaluation of their
importance made, priorities accorded and a basis for comparison with the
requirements of other spectrum uses provided.
The Commission has previously rejected the Broadcasters' proposal for an
extensive program of monitoring of this kind, principally on the basis that we
have enough knowledge of the purposes served in each service, sufficient
knowledge of the nature of the operations to make judgments on their
importance, and firsthand knowledge of message content and operating procedures
obtained over many years of continuous surveillance of the spectrum. We have said that this would continue, and
we would make particular note of the general character and message content of
land mobile transmissions. This has
been done, and we have found only confirmation of the principles that formed
the basis for authorization of the various services in the first place. Further, land mobile communications and
operating practices are characterized by brief, vocal exchanges between
stations obviously designed and intended to provide for a maximum exchange of
meaningful and needed information in the minimum of time. The experience of the Commission's Field
Engineering Bureau, which has the entire land mobile radio spectrum under
surveillance in connection with a program of mobile monitoring based on the
sampling of land mobile use in representative areas of the country including
the largest urban areas, shows that the foregoing procedures are almost
universally followed in the land mobile radio services.
n5 AMST's comments on this matter
were based largely on a study conducted for AMST by the Peter Kelly Scientific
Corp. (Kelly) which was submitted as part of AMST's comments as exhibits C and
D. Among other things, Kelly urges establishment eventually of large common
user radio communication systems which he claims would have the incentive,
organizational structure, and resources to introduce new technological
approaches which he claims will solve the congestion problem and will provide
for the normal growth of land mobile communications. Among other technological innovations, Kelly advocated (a)
multiplexing which he claims would save between 22 and 40 percent of spectrum;
(b) trunking which could save 60 to 80 percent of the spectrum now used by
commercial and industrial users; (c) time sharing of available channels at a
saving of between 20 and 30 percent; (d) nonvoice radio systems, such as
teleprinters, which would involve as a minimum 20 to 30 percent spectrum
savings; and (e) geographic spaced sharing using cellular concepts and a
combination of low power transmitters, wireline interconnections, selective
calling and vehicle locator systems which, he argues, as a long-term solution,
could save 95 percent of the land mobile radio spectrum. Kelly advocated large public safety systems
to be used by multiple governmental agencies within single political
jurisdictions as well as among different jurisdictions on a regional basis; and
similar systems to be used by such public service and land transportation entities
as power utilities and telephone companies, railroads, bus and other regulated
transportation systems. For industrial
and commercial users, such as petroleum, manufacturers, construction companies,
and the business community in general, Kelly advocated common user radio
systems operated by commercial service companies, to replace the proliferation
of small and inefficient private radio systems. Kelly's studies have been reviewed. In our opinion, however, the conclusions reached have not been
substantiated. It is noted that others,
notably the Advisory Committee for the Land Mobile Radio Services, have reached
different and to a great extent opposite conclusions on many of these same
issues. See par. 14, note 10, infra.
7. Moreover, they argued, radio communication
systems in the land mobile radio services will not grow as much as the
Commission has assumed. AMST, for
example, using a lesser data base than the Commission and applying what it
called a valid statistical methodology, concluded that there will be 2.9
million land mobile transmitters in use by 1980, not 7.3 million transmitters
projected by the Commission.
8. AMST finally argues that the need for
fundamental reforms in the land mobile radio service is of critical relevance
to the question of whether the Commission should allocate television spectrum
to these [*329] services, and that this primary question
must be resolved before the Commission precipitously acts to reallocate
television broadcast spectrum.
9. We have considered carefully these arguments
and the responses presented by land mobile interests and we have reviewed the
various studies cited by the parties in support of their positions. We observe first that the universal comment
and testimony of the land mobile community alleging that the crowded condition
of available frequencies seriously impairs the usefulness of existing land
mobile communication systems has not been seriously questioned. Also, no serious question has been raised as
to the importance of land mobile radio communications to our society. We think this is beyond question. It is well established that land mobile
communications play safety, as well as in the indu a vital role and have become
indispensable in public trial, transportation and commercial activities of the
Nation. Finally, there is little, if
any, dispute that congestion and the unavailability of frequencies, whatever
their causes, are seriously affecting the public interest in that vital
services are being hampered because of inadequate radio communications. The issue before us is whether needed relief
can reasonably be provided solely through increased utilization of the spectrum
space allocated to the land mobile radio services, or whether access to additional
spectrum space is necessary in order to provide for adequate land mobile
communications for the immediate as well as the more distant future. We will address ourselves to this
issue. Before discussing the arguments
directed to it, we believe that it is important to outline a number of what we
consider fundamental facts in order to place this issue in proper perspective.
10. The total amount of frequency space
allocated to all of the land mobile radio services between 25 and 890 MHz is
somewhat over 40 MHz. This basic
frequency allocation and most of the land mobile radio services were
established in the late 1940's. See "Report of Allocations from 25,000
Kilocycles to 30,000,000 Kilocycles," docket 6651, released May 25, 1949;
and "General Mobile Service, Report and Order," dockets 8658, 8965,
8972, 8973, 8974, 9001, 9018, 9046, 9047, 13 F.C.C. 1190. These allocations
have remained essentially unchanged to date.
11. Within the approximately 40 MHz of spectrum
space, the land mobile radio services have accommodated a communications growth
unparalleled in any other radio service, save the citizens radio service. Thus, in 1949, the 40 MHz of land mobile
space was occupied by 11,600 licensees authorized to operate about 155,000
radio transmitters. Today, essentially
the same amount of space sustains 293,000 licensees, authorized to operate
nearly 4 million transmitters. n6 This growth has been possible through increasingly
more intensive utilization of the available spectrum attained through tighter
technical standards, extensive intraservice co-channel sharing and considerable
interservice sharing. Thus, the
separations between frequencies assignable in the land mobile radio services
has been narrowed in the last 25 years from as much as 120 kHz to 20, 30 (and
in some services 15 kHz) n7 and 25 kHz, respectively, [*330]
in the 25 to 50, 150 to 162 and 450 to 470 MHz bands. the second generation of land mobile radio
services we established in 1958 and new uses we have authorized since were
accommodated exclusively on channels created by channel splitting. n8
Operation on narrower channels has been made possible by significant
improvements in the design and performance characteristics of land mobile radio
equipment. Thus, frequency stability
has been improved, receiver selectivity has been improved considerably, image
rejection improved from 60 dB to 100 dB, and inter-modulation and IF beat
rejection have been improved in the order of 40 dB to 100 dB. Similarly,
transmitter noise and transmitter harmonics have been reduced, and impulse noise
blanketing circuits have been developed to reduce harmful interference due to
impulse noise. Continuous tone coded
squelch systems have been devised to control the reception of unwanted signals. It is generally conceded that further
reduction of channel width and further improvements along these lines are not
practical at this stage of the art.
n6 See par. 21, infra.
n7 Fifteen kHz channels are
regularly assignable in most public safety and land transportation radio
services in the 150-162 MHz band. In
the pending rulemaking proceeding in docket 17703, the Commission has proposed,
at the request of a number of user organizations, to make 15 kHz channels
assignable in all services, except the business radio service. See "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
Docket 17703," 29 FR 13143.
n8 The local government,
manufacturers, telephone maintenance, and the business radio services were
established in 1958. Since then, well
over 100,000 licenses have been issued in the business radio service alone. In the rulemaking proceeding in docket
13847, additional channels were created by reducing channel spacing from 50-25
kHz in the 450-470 MHz band. In
addition to the existing services, some of the new frequencies were made
available for communications at air terminals, for paging, teleprinters and for
possible future use in connection with highway safety and to the industrial
protection industry. See,
"Frequency Allocations in 450-470 Mc/s Band, Second Report and
Order," docket 13847, 11 F.C.C. 2d 648 (1968).
12. Further, land mobile communications are not
uniformly distributed throughout the country, but are concentrated in and near
the population centers. A 1964 study
conducted by the Land Mobile Section of the Electronic Industry Association
(EIA), for example, showed that 50 percent of all authorized transmitters in
the business and special industrial radio services are operated in less than 4
percent of the county's land area.
Those two services account for more than one-third of all transmitters
in all of the land mobile radio services.
EIA also showed that slightly more than 50 percent of all land mobile
transmitters are in less than 8 percent of the country's land areas. The concentration of land mobile
communication systems in population centers in nearly all of the radio services
limits the possibilities for more extensive sharing of frequencies either
within a service or among different land mobile services.
13. Nevertheless, we recognize, as many of those
who have studied the land mobile radio services have recognized, that further
improvements in the manner in which frequencies are allocated and used in the
land mobile radio services can be made.
This, in fact, has been the Commission's policy for the past 20 years,
and is our policy now. We do not
consider these questions secondary, as AMST implies. Indeed, our efforts toward finding solutions to the land mobile
radio problems in the past 5 years, especially, have been directed particularly
to increased efficiency in the use of land mobile radio spectrum, and
substantial improvements have been introduced, particularly in the 450 to 470
MHz band. The Advisory Committee for
the Land Mobile Radio Services (ACLMRS), for example, for 3 1/2 years and with
nearly 200 engineers and communications experts, examined a broad range of
possible improvements and most of its recommendations have been implemented.
[*331] The contract study conducted by the Stanford
Research Institute was part of this effort.
We, therefore, recognize the need for and are committed to constantly
revising our rules and policies to introduce developing technology and new
allocation and assignment techniques into the land mobile communications to
achieve spectrum efficiency and enhance the value of these services. We are well aware of the various studies to
which the broadcast comments called our attention. They have been, and are under consideration by the Commission and
we have adopted plans and are formulating others looking toward implementing
those recommendations which seem most feasible within the present technological
context and can be implemented within a reasonable time frame. But we are not persuaded, in view of the
available evidence from the record of this proceeding, our own experience, and
from the numerous studies of land mobile problems, that reforms alone will
solve the problem for a number of reasons.
14. First, the degree of relief that can be
gained by the introduction of the various improvements urged by the
broadcasters is speculative. Indeed,
land mobile spokesmen have argued that many of the various specific reforms
recommended would not only be inappropriate for the land mobile radio services,
but could result in less efficient use of the available spectrum. They pointed out, for example, that most of
the improvements suggested by the broadcasters were considered at length by the
ACLMRS for more than 3 years but that committee concluded that adoption of
these techniques would result in relatively minor improvements and in many
cases less efficient use of the spectrum and that they did not promise
sufficient relief to warrant general adoption in the land mobile radio
services. n9 Complete elimination of the existing block
allocation or substituting allocation of frequencies to broader categories of users,
the land mobile comments argue with some validity, would be unwise and, in any
event, would yield little relief in the more congested areas where most of the
useful channels in almost all services are now in use. Land mobile spokesmen stated that large
common user systems would be less efficient in terms of spectrum utilization
and they may not be well adapted to the land mobile radio services because of
the great dissimilarity of the communication requirements of the user
community. Trunking as it is used in
the common carrier telephone system may not be appropriate in many land mobile
radio services, land mobile comments argue, and it is an extravagant use of the
spectrum. Similarly, it was claimed
that multiplexing may not be practical in these services because relatively few
land mobile systems have similar coverage requirements and the high power
required for multiplexing could result in the substantially less efficient [*332]
use of the spectrum. All land
mobile comments, including those submitted by police spokesmen, rejected AMST's
suggestion that industrial and commercial users be moved from the 150 to 162
MHz band in order to concentrate the primary radio needs of the police in that
band because this would not fully meet the frequency requirements of the police
and would be hugely expensive. EIA
stated, for example, that this would cost industrial and commercial users
nearly $220 million.
n9 ACLMRS studied, among other
subjects, the following: Broadband, multiple-access system; trunking;
multiplexing; low and variable power concepts; tighter control of signal
radiation; application of computer techniques to radio frequency assignment;
expanded interservice sharing, reallocation within the land mobile bands;
nonvoice systems; variable power systems; locating base stations together in
groups, and others. For a summary of
the subjects studied and the expected benefits of each, see 1 Report of ACLMRS
pp. 43-44. The ACLMRS concluded that
reduction of the channel width in the 450-470 MHz band from 50 kHz to 25 kHz,
removal of fixed (point-to-point) operations from that band, and expanded
interservice sharing were the only approaches promising substantial
relief. ACLMRS's recommendations for
reducing the channel width and removal of fixed operations from the 450-470 MHz
band have been implemented. The
Commission, however, felt that the criteria suggested by the committee for
expanded interservice sharing should be explored further. The contract study by the Stanford Research
Institute was conducted primarily for this purpose.
15. We are not deciding whether any particular
suggested techniques or allocation and assignment policies should or should not
be adopted in the land mobile radio services, nor do we believe that we can
decide these issues on the basis of the available information. These issues present highly complex
technical and policy problems which can only be resolved in an evolutionary
process through developmental operations and other methods for testing their
technical and operational value.
Suffice it to say that we simply cannot ignore the congestion problems
in the land mobile services while these concepts are debated and tested.
16. The report of the Stanford Research
Institute giving the results of its 1-year study of the land mobile radio
services does indicate that improvement in the utilization of spectrum by the
land mobile services is possible, and we are pursuing SRI's basic
recommendations, funds having been requested to begin their implementation. However, just what the degree in improvement
in frequency utilization will be and exactly what can be achieved through these
means to meet the frequency requirements for land mobile communications remain
largely a matter of speculation. This
cannot be determined with complete assurance or accuracy until the frequency
management approach has been placed in operation and the experience gained
evaluated. For the present there is no
evidence by anyone, SRI included, that such improvements as will follow from
the frequency management procedures recommended by SRI will provide a
breakthrough and assure adequate spectrum space for the present and projected
needs of the land mobile services. And
it is clear that complete implementation of the SRI recommendation is a
long-term proposition, even assuming that the necessary funds are made
available.
17. It is clear that the SRI report does not
demonstrate that there is no need to reallocate additional radio frequencies to
the land mobile radio services, as the broadcast interests have argued. Nor does it demonstrate the opposite
proposition. This was not the purpose
of the study and it simply did not deal with the question. See, for example, SRI Interim Report, part
B, note on page 3; SRI Final Report, part B, note on page 1; statements of W.R.
Vincent during oral argument in this proceeding, transcript pages 462,
475. The purpose of the study was to
explore the possibilities for increased utilization of the land mobile
frequencies through expanded land mobile interservice sharing and through the
development of new frequency allocation and assignment techniques. The data developed and the analysis of the
data were used solely to illustrate that the management approach recommended in
the report could result in more efficient use of the available radio
frequencies. Thus, we cannot conclude,
as the broadcast comments have urged, that the data on channel occupancy shows
that additional spectrum [*333] is unnecessary. The data supplied by SRI cannot be reasonably used to support that
conclusion. The monitoring of the land
mobile radio channels on which the data was based was too limited, in time,
place, and scope, as well as in consideration of future growth, to be
conclusive one way or another.
18. Finally, as we have indicated, to the extent
to which the various concepts and techniques for improving utilization of the
land mobile radio spectrum are shown to be valuable, it will be several years
before they may be implemented. For
example, the approach to frequency management recommended in the SRI report
requires regional management centers, frequency monitoring and computer data
processing, none of which are now available to us, as well as the development
of concepts and standards for better distribution of channel usage among available
frequencies. These can be derived only
in an evolutionary process as we gain operational experience. Also, to the extent that improvements are
found to be valuable, their implementation would require expenditure of large
sums by the Commission. It has been
estimated in the SRI report, for example, that the annual cost for the
operation of one of the several regional management centers would be
approximately $1.5 million. From the
standpoint of the user, there are now more than 300,000 individual land mobile
communications systems in existence, many of them small, as pointed out by
AMST, others large, but all representing a substantial investment on the part
of each licensee and more importantly, they are integrated into and are
indispensable to the licensee's day-to-day operations. Thus, immediate and sweeping changes, even
if possible and desirable, could not be made because, aside from the very large
expenses that would be involved, there would be serious disruption of the
operations of the users to the detriment of the public.
19. In sum, we recognize the need for and we are
pursuing programs likely to achieve substantial improvements in the management
and use of the land mobile radio services.
However, the extent of the benefits to be achieved are uncertain, the
costs will be substantial, and, in any event, improvement can only be gained
gradually and over a relatively long period of time.
20. We now turn to the broadcasters' argument
that we have relied on "inflated" statistics, both with respect to
the number of land mobile radio transmitters now in use and especially with
respect to the extent of future growth of land mobile communications. In adopting our proposals in this proceeding
and those in docket 18262, we had tentatively concluded that the requirements
for land mobile communications in 1980 would more than double (i.e., that there
would be approximately 7.3 million authorized transmitters in 1980 as
contrasted to nearly 3 million in 1968).
AMST, as we mentioned, disagreed.
It argued that the growth rate in the land mobile radio services is
decreasing and projected a total number of radio transmitters by 1980 of
approximately 2.9 million. On the other
hand, comments filed by land mobile interests argued that our own estimates were
conservative and that AMST's conclusions were wrong. They pointed out that AMST used a constantly changing and larger
base in order to give the appearance of a constantly decreasing growth rate and
applied to it a statistical [*334] curve which is employed by statisticians to
predict growth in phenomena where growth must stop at some point, such as the
growth of the height of a human being; but that this is not appropriate in
predicting the growth of radio usage because there is, of course, no predictable
limiting factor, unless it is imposed by rule whereas the basic point of this
proceeding is to avoid imposing such a limitation if it is practical and
feasible to do so. The Land Mobile
Communications Council (LMCC), using AMST's basic statistics, concluded that
there will be nearly 11 million transmitters by 1980, not 2.9 million estimated
by AMST, assuming there are enough frequencies available to permit orderly
growth. The Land Mobile Section of the
Electronic Industries Association projected a growth similar to that predicted
by LMCC.
21. There are many unpredictable variables
bearing on the growth of land mobile radio communications service and a key
factor in this instance is obviously the availability of spectrum space itself. It is, therefore, impossible to predict
conclusively and with a high degree of accuracy the needs of land mobile
communications by 1980. The one
certainty, however, is the growth rate that has been sustained over the past 10
years. Add to this the known
availability of a number of technological developments and known requirements
for their application in the land mobile field, it is reasonable if not
imperative that we plan for a demand for land mobile communications by the end
of this decade at least double, and more likely more, that of today. Certainly, AMST's projections do not appear
supportable. Thus, a computer count of
the number of radio transmitters authorized in the private land mobile radio
services as of June 30, 1969, shows nearly 3.8 million transmitters specified
on the face of outstanding licenses as of that date. Even if we were to use AMST's estimates that 66 percent of
authorized transmitters are actually in use, there were in mid-1969, more than
2.5 million transmitters in use n10
or close to the number estimated by AMST for 1980. In any event, and disregarding specific numbers, even by AMST's
own estimates, land mobile communications should almost double by 1980. (AMST estimated 1.6 million in 1968 and 2.9
million by 1980.)
n10 The Commission's annual report
on the number of transmitters in the land mobile services is also an estimate
of the number of transmitters in actual use based on applying certain factors
to a count of outstanding station licenses.
The number to be shown in the annual report for fiscal year 1969 is
approximately 3,142,000.
22. In trying to foresee the requirements for
land mobile communications of the future, we have examined the basic factors
responsible for the growth of land mobile communications in the past. Among these factors were: the growth of our
population and our economy (land mobile communications systems have grown
faster than both), the vast expansion of our urban centers, particularly those
adjacent to our larger cities; the enormous growth of and corresponding
reliance on motor vehicles, private, public, and commercial; the increased
mobility of our society; and the well-known social problems of unprecedented
complexity and urgency which have placed enormous demands on public safety
agencies. The increased demand for
radio communications, moreover, has brought lowered costs and this,
coupled [*335] with technological improvements, have put
radio equipment within the financial reach of even the smallest business. As a result, many business operations have
become so dependent on radio that they would be hard pressed to remain
competitive without it. In short, for a
variety of reasons, during the past quarter century, the use of radio has grown
into one of the most effective operational tools available to the American
business and industrial community and it has, of course, become indispensable
in public safety functions. These
factors, we believe, will continue to create an even greater need for land
mobile communications in the future.
The comments filed in this proceeding and a number of studies have made
it abundantly clear that local governments, industry, transportation, and the
general business community will rely increasingly on land mobile communications
to respond more effectively to the complex problems of our society.
23. It has been made clear, of course, that to a
large degree existing communications systems are not adequate in many cases to
meet even current requirements, let alone those of the future. The National Advisory Committee on Civil
Disorders, for example, found that "[relatively] few police departments
have adequate communications equipment or frequencies." n11 The President's Crime Commission reached
substantially the some conclusions. n12 It is generally known that during the major civil
disturbances in recent years, in the larger urban centers, the radio
communications of the various public safety agencies proved seriously
inadequate in practically all communities where such disturbances occurred. n13
This situation is by no means limited to the public safety services, but it is
pervasive throughout most of the land mobile radio services in the largest
urban complexes as the record in this proceeding, our own experience in
administering these services, and others who have studied this problem have
made clear. n14 Thus, the need to "catch up" with current
requirements will generate much of the growth of land mobile communications in
the near future, assuming the radio frequency resources are made
available.
n11 See "Report of the National
Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders," p. 268 (Mar. 1, 1968).
n12 See "Task Force Report:
Science and Technology," a report to the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, pp. 21, 114-116. See also generally, "The Allocation of
Radio Frequencies and Its Effect on Small Business," a report of
Subcommittee No. 5 to the Select Committee on Small Business, House of
Representatives, 90th Cong., second sess., H. Rept. 1978.
n13 See H. Rept. 1975, ibid. For a general discussion of the inadequacy
of existing police and other public safety communications, see generally,
"Task Force Report: Science and Technology," ch. 3.
n14 See, for example, hearings on
The Allocation of Radio Frequency and Its Effect on Small Business, before
Subcommittee No. 5 of the Select Committee on Small Business, 90th Cong.,
second sess., ibid.
24. To meet current as well as future
communications requirements, many of our largest cities and many states, with
Federal financial assistance, are now in the process of expanding and
modernizing their police and other public safety communications systems. New York City, for example, is in the
process of implementing a multimillion dollar police communications system
which, according to the Police Commissioner of that city, will eventually
require 2 1/2 times as many radio frequencies as are now assigned to its Police
Department. n15 [*336] Public safety officials, however, have found
that the "central obstacle to needed improvements will be the very serious
shortage of available radio frequencies * * *." n16
n15 Letter of Howard R. Leary,
police commissioner, to Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated Dec.
8, 1967.
n16 Letter of Raymond P. Shafer,
Governor of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on behalf of National Governors'
Conference and the National Association of Attorneys General, to Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, dated Feb. 11, 1970. See also, letter of Chairman and Vice Chairman,
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, to Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission, dated Feb. 7, 1968.
25. In December 1969, the Associated
Public-Safety Communications Officers, Inc.
(APCO), released a report of the second phase of its study of police
communications of a tri-State area which was conducted under a grant from the
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice under a study
contract. The technical and engineering
studies were performed by the IIT Research Institute. The basic purposes of the study were to examine the present and
future (to 1980) spectrum requirements for effective law enforcement
communications in the Lake Michigan metropolitan area which includes Milwaukee,
Wis., Chicago, Ill., and Gary, Ind., as well as over 300 smaller communities,
and to develop plans for coordinated and efficient communications network
systems in that area and thus furnish a model for other areas of the
Nation. The study assumed, as one of
the basic criteria, that an effective coordinated police communications system
should permit an average delay in getting a message on the air during busy
periods of no more than 5 seconds. It
was concluded that to achieve this objective and to permit close coordination
among the various police jurisdictions, the type of communications systems
recommended for the area would presently require more than five times as many
frequencies as are now assigned, and more than eight times as many by 1980
(see, Associated Public-Safety Communications Officers (APCO), Inc.,
"Summary, Illinois Police Communications Study, Phase Two," December
1969, p. 16; see generally "APCO Illinois Communications Study, Phase
Two," vol. 2, December 1969).
While we have reached no conclusions with respect to the findings and
the recommendations of the study, it is nevertheless indicative of the present
and future frequency requirements in the police radio service, and in general
supports the comments filed in this proceeding by spokesmen for the public
safety radio services urging the Commission to allocate additional radio
spectrum to the land mobile radio services.
26. Similarly, comments filed by spokesmen of
radio users in other services indicated similar needs. For example, the Automobile Club of Southern
California stated that it expects its radio usage to increase by 70 percent
during the next 5 years and has adopted plans to purchase the necessary
equipment to meet that need. The
Utilities Telecommunications Council expects that the Nation's electric, gas, and
water utilities will "triple" their channel usage by 1980 if they are
to meet the expanding and more complex demands for utility services of the
public. The Special Industrial Radio
Services Association stated that more than 2,500 new radio users are authorized
in the Special Industrial Radio Service each year and 1,500 existing licensees
in that service expand their systems.
The Central Committee on Communication of the American Petroleum
Institute stated that the current
[*337] growth rate of about 7
percent in land mobile communications is expected to continue in the petroleum
industry.
27. The American Trucking Association reported
in its comments that only a relatively small fraction of the 1.5 million for
hire trucks now use radio. Transit
authorities until recently used radio only on supervisory and maintenance
vehicles but they have now begun to equip their operational vehicles in order
to increase efficiency in operation and for security and crime prevention
purposes. The New York City Transit
Authority, for example, has added 4,000 radio mobile units to its operation and
the Chicago Transit Authority has equipped 500 buses with radio. Similarly, transit entities in Detroit and
St. Louis, according to comments filed by the American Transit Association, are
expanding their systems. The
International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association maintained that lack of
frequencies thus far has thwarted development of communication on interstate
and toll highway facilities and anticipates considerable use of radio
communication for a variety of purposes for the more efficient and safer
operation of our densely traveled throughways and interstate highway
systems. Communications on the highways
for the motoring public are still in the developmental and experimental stage.
28. In summary, we believe there is very
substantial evidence of the need for greatly expanded land mobile
communications both in the immediate future and i the years to come to the
extent that our initial estimate of a doubling of requirements by 1980 may be
conservative. There is no doubt that
some additional usage could be derived from presently allocated land mobile
spectrum by putting into force some of the various frequency conservation and
improved assignment processes which have been discussed above. But, as we mentioned, after a number of
years of consideration and study by the Commission and outside parties of the
usefulness of this approach, the best that can be said is that the degree of
relief which can be derived therefrom is uncertain while the cost to the users
and to the public of making some or all of the suggested changes would be very
high. This must be contrasted with the
alternative of providing the land mobile radio services with additional radio
spectrum space from the frequencies now allocated to UHF television
broadcasting. In the scheme for
georgraphical sharing by the land mobile services of some television broadcast
spectrum we have adopted in this proceeding, the degree of relief, limited
though it may be, as discussed, infra, is predictable and will not involve
costs even remotely approaching the magnitude that would be incurred in relying
exclusively on the approach urged by the broadcast comments. Further, by reallocating outright television
broadcast spectrum space to the land mobile radio services as we have in docket
18262, we have provided frequency resources for the future development of land
mobile communications. By contrast, we
believe the cost to the public in terms of impaired or lost broadcast service
would be minimal. We emphasize, also
that we are by no means losing sight of the objective of more intensive use of
the radio spectrum. Indeed, in choosing
among alternative courses of action, we have kept in mind our responsibility to
pursue the latter goal. At a time
recently described by the President of the United [*338] States as one of a
"worsening spectrum shortage" n17
it is imperative that frequency allocation and assignment processes be directed
to achieving more effective utilization of the radio spectrum. We have described the considerable efforts
that have been and will be made in that direction with respect to spectrum
space allocated to the land mobile services.
The action we have decided to take today with respect to UHF TV
frequency allocation will substantially increase the utilization of those
frequencies.
n17 Letter from the President to the
Congress, dated Feb. 9, 1970, transmitting the President's Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1970.
29. Similar considerations have led, we believe,
many who have addressed themselves to this problem to have recommended
reallocation of part of the UHF television spectrum to the land mobile radio
services. Among others, the President's
Crime Commission, n18 and the Advisory Committee of the
Land Mobile Radio Services, n19 have
recommended this approach.
n18 Report of the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, "The
Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," p. 254.
n19 "Report of the Advisory
Committee for the Land Mobile Radio Services," 59; see also, H. Rept.
1975, supra at footnote 12.
30. Weighing the relative merits of various
possibilities in the light of these considerations, we conclude that the public
interest will be served by making available additional radio spectrum to the
land mobile radio services. In reaching
our decisions in this matter, particularly with respect to the limited sharing
plan we have adopted in the lower UHF channels, we took into account what we
believe to be well established that the most urgent needs for additional land
mobile radio services for the immediate future exist in and near our largest
urban centers. Thus, the sharing plan
is directed towards meeting the needs in those centers to the degree possible. Further, we have considered carefully but we
have rejected, for a number of reasons, the suggestion urged by the broadcast
interests that any needs for additional spectrum in the land mobile services
should be accommodated exclusively within the 26 MHz of space in the 900-MHz
band made available by the Federal Government.
This spectrum space alone is not considered sufficient to meet the
long-term needs of the Nation for land mobile communications, for private as
well as for common carrier communications systems. Secondly, as we have pointed out above, there is a need for
relief of congestion in the land mobile radio services as soon as possible in
the largest metropolitan centers. Yet,
it is clear that radio systems for land mobile operations in the 900-MHz band
are not currently available. Further, as
we pointed out in our report and order in docket 18262, there remain a number
of serious and complex issues to be resolved before those frequencies can be
made available for regular use (see pars 31 and 38 of the first report and
order in docket 18262).
31. We believe, however, that the long-term
needs of the land mobile radio services should be accommodated in the upper
part of the UHF spectrum. Accordingly,
we have taken actions today which will, we believe, meet to a substantial
degree the immediate needs for land mobile communications in and near our
larger urban centers and set the regulatory framework for the future
development of both private and
[*339] common carrier mobile
communications systems. Thus, we have
adopted a plan under which land mobile radio users will be able to share at
least one, and in some cases two, of the lower seven UHF television channels
(channels 14 through 20) in and near 10 of the largest urban areas of the
country as soon as possible. n20 Secondly, we have reallocated a total of 115 MHz of
spectrum space between 806 and 947 MHz, 75 MHz of which is earmarked for common
carrier land mobile communications systems and 40 MHz for private land mobile
radio systems. See first report and
order in docket 18262. We will now
proceed to a detailed discussion of the specific technical issues raised with
respect to our sharing proposition in the lower UHF television spectrum
(470-512 MHz).
n20 The top 10 urbanized areas are
set forth at table 23, vol. 1, "U.S. Census of Population, 1960."
The Sharing
Proposition
32. The notice in this docket proposed the
shared use of UHF television channels 14 through 20 by the land mobile radio
services. This was to be achieved
through reallocation of these channels to the land mobile radio services for
selective use within the 25 largest urbanized areas n21 under criteria, described below, designed to provide
protection from interference to UHF television stations on those channels. In New York-northeastern New Jersey, for
example, channels 14, 15, 16, and 17 were to be shared, while in
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., it was to be channels 14, 15, and 19, with similar
arrangements in each of the 23 remaining urbanized areas.
n21 The urbanized areas in question
are those set out at table 23, vol. 1, "U.S. Census of Population,
1960."
33. Land mobile stations within these channels
were to be permitted to use facilities with maximum effective radiated power
(ERP) ranging from 400 w, with an antenna of 200 feet above average terrain
(AAT), down to 5 w with a 6-foot antenna.
Minimum mileage separations between land mobile and TV stations were
established n22 so that the land mobile stations,
operating in accordance with the specified power and antenna height
limitations, would provide protection to UHF television stations (then in
operation or to be authorized in the future).
The protection standard proposed was based on maintenance of at least a
50-db ratio of desired to undesired signals, n23 on cochannel frequencies, and 0-db ratio, desired TV to undesired land
mobile signals, on adjacent channel frequencies at the grade B contour of the
UHF television stations involved. n24
n22 These were: Zone I, cochannel,
127 miles, and 49 miles for adjacent channel frequencies; and for zones II and
III, 139 miles, cochannel and 61 miles for adjacent channel frequencies. The zones are those defined in section
73.609 of the Commission's rules. Zone
I includes principally the densely populated centers of the northeastern
quadrant of the country, zone III encompasses the area immediately adjacent to
the Gulf of Mexico, and zone II takes in the remainder of the continental
United States.
n23 Stated another way, the field
strength of the desired television signal at the grade B contour would be more
than 300 times greater than the undesired land mobile signals at that point.
n24 In terms of field strength, the
land mobile signal at the grade B (64 dbu) contour of the protected UHF TV
station could not exceed 14 dbu for cochannel operation (50-db protection
ratio) and 64 dbu for adjacent channels (0-db protection ratio).
34. The criteria further provided for
determination of the grade B contour of the protected TV station based on an
assumed power of 1 megawatt (ERP) and a 1,000-foot antenna (AAT) in zone I, and
an [*340] assumed 2,000-foot antenna in zones II and III. The grade B contour was to be computed using
the F(50,50) curves in "FCC Research Division Report No. R-6602"
(hereinafter referred to as the R-6602 curves) rather than the F(50,50) curves
now in part 73 of our rules (referred to as the rule curves). To determine the distance to the 14 dbu and
64 dbu contour (cochannel and adjacent channel, respectively) of a land mobile
station, we proposed to use the F(50,10) R-6602 curves for distances of 10
miles or greater and the F(50,50) R-6602 curves for distances of less than 10
miles.
35. Finally, other limitations (taboos)
applicable to the assignment of UHF television facilities, including the
intermodulation (IM) and intermediate frequency (IF) beat taboos, were not
considered applicable to operations between land mobile stations and television
facilities, i.e., it was not necessary to take these particular taboos into
account in specifying mileage separations between land mobile and UHF-TV stations. Our basic reasons for this decision were
given in the rulemaking notice. We will
treat them further in our discussion, below.
36. As we have pointed out, the broadcasters
strongly opposed the sharing principle.
The land mobile findings also questioned the sharing proposition and
raised a number of questions regarding the sufficiency of the proposal to meet
land mobile requirements. The
broadcasters' position is that sharing as proposed would result in "widespread"
interference to reception of UHF-TV transmissions, and that the technical
standards we proposed would not be adequate to provide protection to television
reception. In brief, they argue that
protection of UHF-TV stations should be based on the part 73 rule curves, not
those taken from our "Research Division Report No. 6602"; that an
assumed power of one megawatt and an antenna height of 1,000 feet for zone I,
and 2,000 feet for zones II and III are unrealistic because our rules presently
allow greater power and antenna height; n25
that the protection ratio of 50 db for cochannel and 0 db for adjacent channel
frequencies, desired to undesired signals, is inadequate; and that the UHF
intermodulation (IM) and intermediate frequency (IF) beat taboos should not
have been disregarded.
n25 For UHF television, channels
14-83, the rules provide for maximum visual radiated power of 37 dbk (5000 KW)
(except 30 dbk is the limit at points within 250 miles of Canadian-United
States border) and an antenna height of 2,000 feet above average terrain. Combinations of powers and antenna heights
are also allowed. Sec. 73.614(b) and
sec. 73.699, fig. 3.
37. On the other hand, the land mobile interests
counter, saying the protection afforded the television stations is more than
technical considerations warrant (far too conservative); and that the limits on
power, antenna height and possible location of land mobile stations thus
imposed would frustrate totally the primary objectives of this proceeding and
leave the land mobile services with no real relief. As an alternative, they propose a number of modifications in our
plan, which, in their opinion, could be made without increasing the potential
for interference and which they insist are required, if adequate and useful
communication systems are to be created.
n26
n26 Spokesmen for land mobile
interests state that the vast majority of land mobile radio users need
facilities with power and antenna height much greater than even the maximum
(400-w/200-foot antennas) proposed. They
state that typical land mobile communications systems capable of achieving
coverage required by most users must have facilities with powers and antennas
in the order of 1,000 w effective radiated power and 500 feet above average
terrain, respectively. Therefore, they
argue that the proposal should be changed so as to permit land mobile stations
to share the UHF-TV channels with powers and antenna heights in this range.
[*341]
38. We have given careful
consideration to the arguments advanced by the broadcasters and the land mobile
parties in support of their respective positions. We find that both groups have inherent difficulties with the
proposal we made for geographic sharing of the 470-512-MHz band; and that, for
the reasons we broadly mentioned above, neither would have us adopt the plan as
proposed. In these circumstances, we
have found it appropriate to modify the plan and to balance the needs of the
land mobile services for additional spectrum space with a need to assure that
the development of the UHF television service will not be impaired in any
material way through the imposition of significant possible interference from
land mobile stations operating on the shared channels, a possibility that the
broadcasters urge must be avoided.
39. Accordingly, we have decided to adopt a
conservative approach to this problem, not only with respect to the technical
sharing criteria, but also as to the extent to which the shared use of the
lower seven UHF television channels is to be permitted at this time. Thus, we now plan to permit land mobile
radio users to share in 10 of the top 25 urbanized areas, where we have stated
the need for relief is most urgent, and to confine sharing to one and possibly
two UHF-TV channels, those we have determined can be employed with maximum protection
to UHF television while allowing land mobile facilities to operate with powers
and antenna heights suitable for their purposes.
40. Further, although we have been strongly
urged by the land mobile interests to adopt a uniform protection standard of 40
db, desired TV to undesired land mobile ratio, we will adhere to the 50-db
criterion, except in three instances where the application of the 50-db
standard limits significantly the scope of land mobile relief. Thus, the 40-db ratio will be applied in connection
with the use of channel 15 in the New York City area and, subject to the
conclusion of satisfactory arrangements with Canada, in connection with the use
of channel 15 and channel 16 in the Cleveland and the Detroit areas,
respectively. n27 These parameters, we believe, will permit
significant land mobile relief in the top 10 major population centers, and, at
the same time, afford us an opportunity to examine how sharing works in
practice and what requirements can be satisfied through it. Moreover, using them, we feel assured there
will be no significant adverse effect on UHF television reception.
n27 The protection standard to be
employed within areas where Canadian and Mexican use of these channels may be
affected will also depend on the outcome of discussions with these
countries. This matter is discussed,
infra.
41. At the end of 5 years, and of course during
this period, we will evaluate the sharing proposition, as such, and make
further judgments, both on the basis of policy considerations and the technical
data that will then be available to us, as to what actions would be appropriate
with regard to it. With this discussion
as background, then, we turn to a consideration of particular aspects of the
sharing arrangements we will allow and of our resolution of the matters placed
in issue through the comments of the parties.
[*342]
42. First, we have accepted the
position of the land mobile interests that powers and antenna heights
comparable to those now employed in the land mobile services are required if
the relief afforded is to be meaningful.
n28 Therefore, we have, wherever
feasible, made it possible for land mobile stations to employ 1 kw. effective
radiated power and antennas 500 feet above average terrain, as urged by the
land mobile comments. Also, we have
modified the area within which frequencies will be made available for
assignment. In this connection, we have
abandoned the urbanized area concept and substituted an area approach which
will permit land mobile assignments within 50 miles of the center of each of
the 10 largest urban centers now being considered.
n28 Data relative to needed
communication coverages of urban land mobile licensees, submitted in this and
in a previous proceeding, indicate that the majority of them require between 15
and 30 miles base-to-mobile communications.
See third report and order in docket 13847, F.C.C. 69-1037. Facilities in the order of 1 kw./500 feet
are required for coverage out to 30 miles.
43. In achieving this, as we have indicated, we
have modified somewhat some of the criteria and the parameters we proposed for
protecting the UHF television service.
Thus, we have decided, in certain instances, not to protect unused
(unoccupied) television assignments located in or near the 10 urban centers,
where such action is necessary in order to afford some measure of meaningful
relief for the land mobile services.
Our studies indicate that in the majority of cases there are either
other existing unoccupied channels in the areas affected or there are
substitute UHF channels available.
Thus, the impact on UHF television is kept to a minimum. n29
n29 The UHF assignments involved are
listed in appendix E.
44. Further, certain other changes in the
criteria for protection for UHF television facilities have been made. As we said, we have decided in the cases of
Cleveland, Detroit, and New York, to employ (within one of the channels made
available in each of these cities) a ratio of desired TV to land mobile field
strengths of 40 db instead of the 50-db value for cochannel protection. n30
Where applicable, this means that the predicted field strength of a cochannel
land mobile station may not exceed 24 dbu at the grade B (64 dbu) contour of
the UHF-TV facility. n31 Additionally, in zone I, we have amended the plan to
provide protection of the grade B (64 dbu) contour as determined on the basis
of an assumed antenna height of 2,000 feet instead of the original 1,000-foot
antenna height criterion. Adoption of
the 2,000-foot antenna criterion brings uniformity to the protection
requirements for all zones and increases the mileage separation between land
mobile and UHF-TV stations situated in zone I, and thereby increases the degree
of protection to be accorded UHF-TV stations operating in this zone. n32
n30 The exact technical standard to
be employed at Cleveland and Detroit will depend, also, on the results of our
discussions for use of these channels with Canada.
n31 The adjacent channel protection
ratio, 0 db, will remain the same, so that the predicted signal strength of a
land mobile station at the TV grade B contour may not exceed 64 dbu.
n32 Over 40 percent of all
authorized UHF facilities are situated in zone I, while the zone itself
represents only about 10 percent of the total land area of the contiguous
United States.
45. For adjacent channel protection, as
indicated, we have decided to maintain the 0-db ratio, desired to
undesired. We believe that this ratio
is conservative, absent reliable information to the contrary.
46. We have also decided to permit mobile units
to be used anywhere within a 30-mile radius of the transmitter site of an
associated [*343] base station. However, our tables for mobile operation take this into account
and provide protection to the 50-db standard (40 db in the limited cases of
Cleveland, Detroit, and New York) from a point 30 miles distant from the
associated base station toward the protected TV station. Therefore, this feature does not alter the
protection to be afforded UHF TV operations.
47. We turn now to a brief discussion of the plan
itself. The channels available for land
mobile use in each of the eight n33
urbanized areas where relief is being accorded, are listed in table I, appendix
D. In addition, table I includes the
"geographic center" of each of these eight areas. This is to be used in determining whether a
proposed location for a land mobile station is within the permitted 50-mile
radius of a particular urbanized area where frequency relief has been
provided.
n33 Chicago and Philadelphia must
await action by the Commission to clear needed channels. This aspect of the proceeding will be
discussed, infra.
48. In other tables (app. D) we provide the
maximum powers and antenna heights which may be used at varying mileage separations. There are six of these tables: Table A
(50-db protection)and table B (40-db protection) give the maximum power and
antenna height that may be employed by land mobile base stations operating on
cochannel frequencies and the required mileage separations for such base
stations from protected UHF television facilities. Table E gives parallel values for adjacent channel
operation. Tables C (50-db protection),
D (40 db-protection), and F are for mobile operation, and they set out the
distance in miles which must be maintained between the transmitter sites of
protected UHF television stations and the land mobile base station with which
the mobile units are associated. Tables
C and D are for cochannel and table F is for adjacent channel operation. Finally, we also provide a separate list of
the specific UHF station or stations which must be protected by land mobile
stations operating on frequencies in the 470-512-MHz band (app. F). These eight elements, that is to say, table
I, tables A, B, C, D, E, and F, and the station list, taken together,
constitute the basis for determining the frequencies available in any of the
given eight urbanized areas, and ultimately in all 10; n34 the mileage separations required to afford UHF
television stations protection; the particular station or stations which must
be considered in determining whether a frequency can be employed and where it
can be used; and the type of operation (power and antenna height combinations)
that can be put in use.
n34 As set out in the following
paragraph in the text, relief in Chicago and Philadelphia must await further
action to provide suitable channels for use by the land mobile services.
49. As we said, we are adopting this plan to
provide short range relief in the areas where we believe it is needed
most. But with the technical
limitations we are adopting for sharing, we have found we could not, without
further action, satisfy critical demands for added spectrum space in Chicago
and Philadelphia. In these two cities
the plan affords no relief and other steps will be required. In this regard, we have determined that
relief could be made available for Chicago, but for the channel 14 assignment
at Joliet, Ill:, and that similarly relief could be available in the
Philadelphia area, but for channel 19 at
[*344] New Brunswick, N.J. There
are outstanding construction permits on both of these assignments, but
substitute channels can be made available; and, in the circumstances at hand,
we are persuaded that appropriate steps should be taken. We proposed to do this in a separate action.
50. Finally, we are adopting a freeze on all
unoccupied television assignments on channels 14 through 20 that might affect
the use of channels being made available in the 10 urbanized areas by the land
mobile radio services. Existing
stations, and those for which there are outstanding construction permits, are
to be permitted to use maximum powers and antenna heights now permitted under
applicable sections of our rules and the only restriction will be as to changes
of transmitter sites so as to avoid relocation in areas which would increase
the operating limits being imposed on use of the subject channels by the land
mobile services.
51. In order to maintain the integrity of the
sharing arrangements for channels 14 through 20, limitations must be applied to
certain of these channels used or available for use by the broadcasting
service. Such limitations, however,
shall apply only to: (a) The specific UHF channels listed at appendix C and to
channels 14 and 15 at Chicago, Ill., and channels 19 and 20 at Philadelphia,
Pa., which are within 212 miles; and (b) to channels which are adjacent to
those channels and which are within 140 miles.
The required mileage separations shall be determined by measurements from
the centers of the respective urbanized areas set out at table I of appendix
D. Therefore, in accordance with the
foregoing limitations, effective immediately, and until further ordered, we
will not accept: (1) Applications for construction permits for new television
facilities on the affected channels; (2) applications for modification of
existing facilities operating on the affected channels which would involve a
substantial change in the location of an existing television station which
would adversely affect land mobile use; and (3) requests for changes in the
table of television allocations which would involve moving an assignment on an
affected channel to another location within the distances specified. Finally (4) no action will be taken on
pending applications proposing any of the foregoing types of action. With respect to subparagraph (1) above, the
matter of television translators will be dealt within a separate proceeding.
52. In sum, we have tried, wherever possible, to
permit, in and near the top 10 urban centers, land mobile radio users to share
those UHF television channels on which they can operate with adequate power and
antenna heights to meet their stated needs.
Consequently, we selected those channels for shared use where operation
with close to maximum facilities (i.e., 1-kw. ERP/500-ft. antennas) will be
possible over most and, in many cases, in all of the 50-mile area from the
center of the city involved. However,
this need of land mobile radio suers for adequate power and antenna height has
limited severely the possibilities for sharing many of the seven channels under
consideration, and in none of the top 10 urban complexes could land mobile
stations share more than two television channels, except with minimal
facilities, under either the 50-db or the 40-db cochannel protection
criterion. In [*345] these
circumstances, we have concluded that it would not be wise to permit sharing of
more than two television channels, because the facilities would appear to be of
marginal value to land mobile radio users while increasing considerably the
risks of interference to UHF-TV stations.
In short, the plan we have outlined, above, is the most practical one
that we could evolve under the facts and data now available to us.
Disposition of
Objections and Arguments of the Parties to the Sharing Proposition
53. The parties have advanced a number of
objections to the proposed sharing plan, some of which we have mentioned in the
foregoing discussion. The broadcast
interests have argued that we erred in basing our protection standard on a
hypothetical television station operating in zone I, with an assumed power of
1-mw. and a 1,000-foot antenna; and, for zones II and III, with an assumed
antenna of 2,000 feet. n35 They point out that there are several television
stations operating with combinations of power and antenna height which exceed
those of our assumptions, and accordingly complain that we do not afford
protection to such stations through the technical standards we have indicated
we planned to use. First, while we did
assume, for zone I, a 1,000-foot antenna, we have now modified that to protect
stations with an assumed 2,000-foot antenna.
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, then, that the broadcast parties
were correct on this point, the adoption of the new standard would go far in
meeting their objection. In this
connection, our studies show that there is possibly only one UHF facility of
those involved here using equivalent power an antenna height greater than that
we have assumed. n36 As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the
television stations now authorized on channels 14 through 20 operate with
substantially less power than the equivalent of the 1-mw./1,000-foot criteria
we had proposed. This gives assurance,
as a practical matter, that a greater degree of protection will be afforded the
actual grade B service contour of nearly all UHF stations. Besides, the service contours of television
stations are not protected contours, as such, instead, protection in television
is achieved by reason of the minimum permissible separations between stations n37 established in prior Commission proceedings n38 and predicated on a number of factors in addition to
the desired to undesired signal ratios necessary to maintain a given quality of
service. n39 For UHF television, minimum permissible cochannel separations are 155
miles in zone I, 175 miles in zone II, and 205 miles in zone III, and for
adjacent channels, 55 miles in all zones.
Our plan is intended to provided a greater degree of protection than UHF
television stations [*346] receive from other UHF television stations
under existing separation criteria.
n35 Reference to power is in terms
of "effective radiated power -- ERP" and antenna height is height
"above average terrain -- AAT."
n36 The station in question is
WJJY-TV at Jacksonville, Ill.
n37 Sec. 73.612 of the rules.
n38 In this connection, reference is
made to two basic documents; first, "Third Notice of Further Proposed
Rulemaking," docket Nos. 8736, 8975, 8976, and 9175, 16 F.R. 3072; and
second, "Sixth Report and Order," docket Nos. 8736, 8975, 8976, and
9175 (F.C.C. 52-294), Pike & Fischer R.R., vol. 1, part 3, reports 91:601.
n39 Mileage separation requirements
vary considerably, but in no case are the minimums as great as would be
required to meet the desired to undesired signal ratios applicable to a grade B
service under conditions of maximum power.
54. Also, certain broadcast parties have
contended that the plan will have a greater impact on UHF operations which
employ relatively high power and antenna height than would be the case with
stations using lower powers and antenna heights, and that we afford no
protection to viewers outside the grade B of existing stations. From the above discussion, we think it clear
that the protection to be afforded in each case by the land mobile stations
exceeds that of one television station to another as derived from the tables of
minimum separations. This fact in
itself seems to add sufficient insurance against any significant interference
even under the most unfavorable circumstances.
55. A further argument is that we have
established the grade B contour at a distance of 55 miles from the transmitter
site of a protected UHF station by using the F (50,50) R-6602 curves. The broadcasters say that we should have
employed the part 73 rule curves for this purpose. None of the parties seriously contend that the F (50,50) rule
curves accurately reflect coverage of stations operating on channels 14 through
83; and, as we pointed out in our discussion in the rulemaking notice, our
decision to rely on the R-6602 curves was premised on the consideration that
they reflected the latest available data and, thus, provided a better (more
reliable) predicate for establishing the UHF field strengths at varying
distances from the transmitter.
Further, the rules, themselves, n40
carry the caveat that the F(50,50)curves there set out are not based on
measured data at distances beyond 30 miles and are not accurate for predicting
coverage of the UHF-TV channels. The
rules also recognize that field intensities in the UHF range decrease more
rapidly with distances beyond the horizon than those for VHF channels 2 through
6, and that additionally, because of interference between stations, the actual extent
of service on UHF channels will be less than that derived from the F(50,50)
curves. The conclusion reached at
section 73.683 is that the field intensity contours give no assurance of UHF-TV
service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances
indicated. In light of these
considerations, we are rejecting the arguments of the broadcast parties on this
point.
n40 Sec. 73.683 of the rules.
56. The broadcasters also contend we must take
into consideration the UHF intermodulation (IM) and intermediate frequency (IF)
beat taboos in determining which channels could be made available for land
mobile use in each urbanized area. In
this regard, we pointed out in our notice in this proceeding n41 that the current UHF television allocation plan is
based, in part, on certain engineering assignment standards which are referred
to as the UHF taboos. These standards
provide the basis for the cochannel and adjacent channel mileage separation
requirements, as well as other mileage separations between stations on certain
UHF channel combinations which can result in interference between stations
under some conditions. [The
interference effects we are concerned with here are generally referred to as intermediate [*347]
frequency (IF)beats and intermodulation (IM).] n42 We stated in our rulemaking notice that the
separations which have been considered mandatory for television stations might
also be made applicable to the land mobile assignment standards in the
470-512-MHz band, but that, in view of the substantially lower power output
levels and the much narrower bandwidth authorized for land mobile facilities,
minimal interference of this type is to be expected from such stations. We concluded, at that time, that
intermodulation (IM) and the intermediate frequency (IF)beat taboos could be
disregarded, because of these considerations.
n43
n41 "Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking" (F.C.C. 68-743) at par. 8 et seq.
n42 We need not consider the local
oscillator, sound and picture image taboos.
They are peculiar to television, only.
n43 "Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking" (F.C.C. 68-743), supra, at par. 10.
57. We have carefully examined all arguments
advanced by the broadcasters on this proposition, and also review the technical
bases on which the taboos, themselves, were established, and we have concluded
that our tentative determination, announced in our notice, is basically
sound. The intermodulation problem we
are concerned with (IM and IF) n44 occurs in
television receivers only where the field strength of two television signals
are: first, above a certain cut-off magnitude which is quite high; and, second,
relatively equal one to the other at the receiver location. This condition will not exist under our
proposal, except in the most exceptional circumstances, because, simply stated,
the power levels and antenna heights authorized for land mobile use are not
sufficient to bring it about.
n44 Both intermodulation (IM) and
intermediate frequency (IF) beat are "intermodulation" problems.
58. In this connection, we observe that none of
the UHF taboos were taken into account when we allocated the 450-470-MHz band
to the land mobile radio services. This
band is immediately below the television allocations now under consideration
(470-512 MHz). Thus, if the taboos had
been a serious problem, land mobile operations in this band would have affected
television stations on channels 14 through 21 since they bear the same
relationship to those channels that land mobile operations in the band 470-512
MHz bear to a number of channels between 16 through 28. On this point, there are, or have been, UHF
stations operating on channel 14 in the Boston, Mass., area, in San Mateo,
Calif., and Washington, D.C. channel 15 is used in San Diego, Calif.; channel
17 in Philadelphia, Pa:, Miami, Fl a:, and Buffalo, N.Y.; and channel 20 is
occupied in Chicago, Ill.; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco, Calif:, and
Waterbury, Conn. Channel 21 in use in the New York City area. In the vicinity of each of the cities
mentioned, there are a number of land mobile installations in operation, using
frequencies in the band 450-470 MHz, which, theoretically, would cause the
referenced IM and IF beat problems.
Yet, we have had no reports of interference of this nature. In short, then, no persuasive reasons have
been brought to our attention which indicate that we should depart from our
prior determination with respect to these taboos. Nonetheless, we are adding a further measure as a safeguard against
any possible interference from IM and IF beat.
Thus, we are adopting a rule which will require a minimum separation of
1 mile between land mobile base stations and UHF television transmitters [*348]
operating on channels involving either of these two taboos. This will serve to eliminate the possibility
of strong land mobile signals at locations within the area of very strong
television signals.
59. The broadcasters have also argued that the
linear height-gain function we assumed in our original proposal in converting
the R-6602 propagation curves for antenna heights less than 100 feet above
average terrain is invalid; that our assumption that mobile units would operate
from 6 feet above average terrain was in error; and that we did not give
adequate consideration to the cumulative interference effect of transmissions
from a great number of transmitters operating within a single television
channel. We have considered these and
other such subsidiary arguments and we have concluded that none require our
rejection of the basic sharing proposal.
60. First, we agree that the assumed linear
height-gain function for antenna heights from 30 to 100 feet was not well
founded and it has been abandoned and the necessary correction has been
incorporated in the pertinent tables.
Also, as we stated previously, we no longer assume mobile operations at
6 feet above average terrain, but we have built into the appropriate tables an
assumption that mobile units would always operate at 100 feet above average
terrain. This, together with the other
safeguard features we have incorporated into the entire sharing plan, should
prevent any significant interference to television reception.
61. Further, we believe that the broadcasters
have not substantiated their views that the interference potential from
multiple land mobile transmitters would be much greater than we
anticipated. They offered no data to
substantiate their position on this subject.
Moreover, the cochannel protection ratio we have adopted (50 db) is,
itself, a conservative one and when a 10-to 15-db factor is added, due to the
use of directional antennas with front-to-back ratios of this order, the
effective protection will be from 60 to 65 db at the assumed grade B contour of
the protected UHF television facility.
This, in our opinion, is an ultraconservative protection ratio and is
sufficient to guard against the multiple-signal problem. In those areas where we anticipate use of 40
db as the criterion, that is, in New York City, Cleveland, and Detroit, other
conditions obtain that lend assurance there will be no interference. Thus, in the regions adjacent to New York
and Cleveland, in the direction of the cochannel protected TV stations, terrain
features are present which will provide further protection to the reception of
the signals of the television stations involved. n45 With respect to Detroit, terrain
will not add protection in any significant degree. However, WNDU-TV, South Bend, Ind., the cochannel facility to be
protected, now produces a grade B signal, with present authorized power and
antenna height, at 44 miles from its transmitter, based on the R-6602 F(50,50)
curves. Since our computations are
based on a 55-mile contour, there is a margin of safety here. Also, in arriving at values given in the
40-db tables, we used a conservative approach in setting up permissible powers
and antenna heights, listing less than the applicable curves and other data
indicated could be em- ployed;
[*349] and with regard to mobile
operations we have included mileage separations greater than our calculations
showed could have been permitted. These
features, we think will give reasonable assurance that there will not be a
problem due to multiple-signal transmissions of the land mobile stations. Accordingly, we are rejecting the arguments
advanced by the broadcasters on this point.
n45 The cochannel stations are for
New York, WLYH-TV, channel 15, Lancaster, Pa.; and, for Cleveland, WTAP-TV,
channel 15, Parkersburg, W. Va.
62. We have also rejected the arguments of the
broadcasters that the sharing plan should be tested in the field before it is
adopted. We do not believe field tests
are necessary because, as we have said, the sharing criteria we have adopted
are ultraconservative and, therefore, it is not expected that there will be
significant interference to television reception.
63. Finally, the broadcasters argued that land
mobile radio users cannot be expected to perform the required quality of
engineering in establishing their systems so as to avoid interference; and that
the Commission will not be capable of handling the "many"
interference complaints the broadcasters expect to result from the sharing
proposition. We considered these
arguments also but, in view of our conclusions on the basic issues involved in
the sharing plan we have adopted, we do not believe they warrant detailed
discussion and these arguments are rejected.
64. In our consideration of this matter we have
taken into account the need to coordinate with the Governments of Canada and
Mexico any final implementation of the action we have taken today. We believe that, through discussions, we
will be able to work out arrangements to permit the use of the UHF spectrum
involved for both broadcast and land mobile purposes which would be mutually
satisfactory. The necessary steps to
accomplish this will be initiated without delay; and, of course, our plan will
not be implemented in the urbanized areas affected n46 pending the outcome of discussions.
n46 These urbanized areas are:
Detroit, Cleveland, and Los Angeles.
Allocation for
the Domestic Public Radio Services
65. The National Association of Radiotelephone
Systems (NARS) has argued that radio common carriers should be included in
those services eligible for frequencies we here propose to allocate. We have considered the points raised by NARS
in support of their position and are persuaded to grant, in some measure, the
relief it seeks. Accordingly, we will
extend eligibility to include the Domestic Public Radio Services. The degree to which available channels can
be allocated for use by the miscellaneous common carriers will depend on our
evaluation of their relative needs in terms of those of the Public Safety,
Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Services. The division of available spectrum decided upon will be reflected
in the actions we take in making the sub-allocations to the several services.
The Proposal for
Outright Reallocation
66. As we mentioned earlier, land mobile
interests have proposed that we adopt in this proceeding a plan looking towards
the eventual outlight reallocation of the lower seven UHF television
channels [*350] (470-512 MHz) to the land mobile radio
services and have presented detailed plans as well as justifications for
carrying them out. Virtually all land
mobile written comments and all spokesmen for the land mobile interests during
oral argument urged the further step of outright reallocation. Spokesmen for broadcasters as well as
licensees of television stations operating on the channels in question also
addressed themselves extensively to this issue in their reply comments and to a
lesser extent in oral argument.
Briefly, they opposed this proposal vigorously and advanced a number of
technical, economic, and policy arguments in support of their position. We have considered this proposal and have
concluded that outright reallocation of the lower UHF television channels is
impractical. This proposition was not,
of course, part of our proposal and in that sense it is beyond the scope of
this proceeding. In any event, although
this proposal was debated extensively in the comments, and in a number of
forums outside the Commission, we do not believe sufficient information has
been developed or presented to us upon which to base a decision. As has been suggested, the Commission has
under consideration instructions to its staff to conduct an in-house
investigation of the geographic separation standards for UHF television
stations (the so-called UHF-TV taboos) and, as we have said, we plan to review
the sharing plan we have adopted within 5 years and to make further judgments
with respect thereto. By then, we will
also know more about the development of land mobile communications systems and
equipment for operation in the 806-947-MHz region and we will be in a better
position to determine the needs of the services concerned.
67. In sum, we believe the public interest would
be served by permitting the land mobile radio services to share some of the
lower UHF television channels in the manner and to the extent we have
described. The rules necessary to
effectuate the sharing plan we have adopted are in appendices C and D. Appendix C contains the necessary amendments
to part 2 of the Commission's rules; appendix D contains the general rules to
govern the shared use of the frequency band 470-512 MHz by stations in the land
mobile radio services. The latter
rules, or rules of the same substance, will be incorporated into parts 21, 89,
91, and 93 of the Commission's rules at a later date. Also, at a later date, we will propose specific rules prescribing
the precise assignable frequencies and the standards to govern their
authorization and use within the various land mobile radio services. In the meantime no applications for these
frequencies will be accepted.
68. In view of the foregoing, It is ordered,
pursuant to sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, that effective July 10, 1970, the rules contained in appendices C and
D are adopted. Formal codification of
rules contained in appendix D will be accomplished at later date.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE,
Secretary.
CONCUR:
CONCURRING
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
I concur in our
action today in docket 18261, approving the sharing of spectrum in the largest 10
markets between land mobile operators and UHF television broadcasters on the
lower-seven UHF channels. I have also
concurred in our action in docket 18262, allocating outlight 115 MHz of
spectrum of land mobile. I reluctantly
case both of these votes. I am
convinced that many users of the land mobile services are in immediate need of
relief from spectrum congestion. I
think that much [*364] of the congestion can be eliminated by
better spectrum management techniques, but we have just begun efforts at
improving our management capabilities and significant relief from these efforts
is regrettably several years off. We
must now pay the price of years of short-sighted responses to a growing
problem. The present system of spectrum
management and allocation decision-making prevents a rational, unified spectrum
policy. I have sincere doubts about the
advisability and practicality of the actions the Commission takes today. But more than that my votes reflect my
doubts and frustrations over a system of decision-making which compels me to
always vote "yes" or "no" on short-range solutions to
immediate crises, without any consideration of long-range alternatives to the
problems.
I. THE FCC AND SPECTRUM DECISIONMAKING
Confronted with
the demands on the radio spectrum by commercial broadcasting, industrial use,
and private use, this Commission, charged by Congress with bringing order out
of the spectrum chaos of the 1920's, has failed to develop virtually any
consistent, rational policy of spectrum management. The decisions allocating spectrum between competing uses and users
are made with little intelligent planning.
Each case tends to introduce new criteria of allocation. Much of the value of predictability is
denied to the applicants for spectrum.
The resulting difficulty in planning is a tax on the economy and
produces inefficiencies that no nation can long afford. Further, the Commission's failure to manage
the radio spectrum more efficiently seriously affects economic development and
leads to less than optimum resource allocation throughout the economy.
A. Inefficiencies From the Present Spectrum
Decision-making
The danger and
harm resulting from the non-management of the spectrum may not be as obvious as
the fact that a rational, systematic management does not exist. It is obvious that the ease with which
spectrum users are accommodated in the spectrum affects their capital costs, so
that ineffective management of the spectrum raises these costs and produces inefficiencies
and distortions in the economic system.
But there are other, more subtle inefficiencies introduced by spectrum
non-management.
(a) The present
spectrum management system has produced the repeated criticism that the FCC has
failed to take account of economic considerations in the management of the
radio resource. The Commission even
today has no economists who are involved in the spectrum management
process. In fact, the total lack of
other than engineering standards in the process has caused existing standards
to be vague, un-integrated, and virtually useless for marginal analysis. The determination that must be made in
allocating spectrum is the value of an additional unit of spectrum to one use
compared with an additional unit to another use. The absolute value of spectrum to either use is irrelevant. This is what is meant by marginal analysis.
(b) Spectrum
users find themselves subject to a number of incentives which work positively
against efficient spectrum management,
[*365] and the Commission has
failed to modify that system. Thus,
there is no incentive for a present user to economize on spectrum; he gets it
free. There is an incentive to
stockpile spectrum; it may be difficult to get in the future but costs nothing
to stockpile. Acquisition of new
spectrum is so uncertain that research and development activities are
unnecessarily risky. Although
technologically there may be many substitutes for spectrum, without the
incentive to economize on its use these will never be developed.
(c) There is no
present systematic provision for transferring spectrum from present users who
give lower national return to new or alternative users who could provide higher
national return. In fact there is no
way the Commission can tell when its frequency distribution has achieved an
optimum benefit flow, or how far present allocation deviates from the optimum.
(d) The
Commission processes do not allow even private market efficiency, since the
allocation of blocks of spectrum for a specific use prevents less profitable
uses of the spectrum from being exchanged for more profitable ones. The Commission does not know if its block
allocations are consistent with the most profitable and efficient use of the
spectrum -- although it is a virtual certainty that such is not the case.
(e) There is no
natural incentive for more intensive use of spectrum -- through sharing
acceptable levels of interference, or redesign of systems. Again, present users pay nothing for
spectrum, and sharing is less satisfactory to them than monopolization.
(f) The Commission
does not have the capacity to evaluate adequately the proper mixture of uses of
the new spectrum now becoming technically and economically useful at higher and
higher frequencies.
(g) There is no
comparison of the relative benefits of governmental and nongovernmental uses of
the spectrum, a comparison that must be made if judgments about optimum
resource allocation are to be made.
(h) The
Commission continues to function under the unarticulated assumption that
demands for frequency utilization will continue to increase by no more than
small increments over the years to come.
We must consider the possibility that our estimates are woefully
inadequate -- that, indeed, our present conceptions of use and administrative
procedure are actually impeding mobile communications in this country. What if even half of all automobiles in this
country were to be equipped with mobile radios? What if even one-tenth of the American people wished to carry
mobile communications equipment with them?
To borrow from the analogy of the telephone system, mobile
communications may now be where cable communications were about 1910. We now have more than 100 million
interconnected telephones; each can reach any of the others in about 30 seconds;
party lines have been virtually eliminated; security of communications is
generally provided; licenses are not required; equipment can be installed and
operating in a relatively short time.
Why will Americans be satisfied with anything less in their mobile
communications a few years hence? Are
we ready for such an eventuality? How
much are we daily losing in gross national product, corporate profits, and
human satisfaction from our failure to anticipate such a system? Suppose mabile communications demand
increases not by 10 percent or twofold, but 100-fold, [*366] or
1,000-fold. What kind of system should
we have then? It is long past the time
when these questions should have been addressed. Congress and the Nation have a right to expect their spectrum
managers to be concerned with the severe maladies in our administrative scheme
which inhibit the answering of these questions.
The challenge of
a system based on administrative determinations of priorities is to develop a
rational basis for decision-making on social and economic grounds. This is the problem of developing criteria
for decision-making. Obvious factors to
be considered in spectrum management decisions are contribution to the gross
national product, the value of the equipment used, and the value to the Nation
of the service provided. But there are
other factors to be considered; there is the problem of relative weight to be
given to each factor; and there are problems inherent in any system of
decision-making based on priorities.
First, it is hard to find a truly objective group to maintain a priority
system. Second, to be truly accurate,
local variations in relative value of the spectrum require separate
determinations for each geographic area, and changes over time require frequent
revisions. Third, a priority system of
decision-making must be based upon marginal values, a nearly impossible
determination.
Another aspect
of the decision-making process that adds to the spectrum management crisis is
the lack of long-range, overall spectrum planning. In many ways the Commission's actions are in the nature of
attention to policy planning and analysis.
But there is nobody -- in or attention to policy planning and
analysis. But there is nobody -- in or
out of Government -- that is constantly looking at the spectrum management
problems as a whole. There is virtually
no opportunity for anyone to step back from the petty considerations of
individual case decisions and assess where the policies are leading. Perhaps in the end this, and most of the
previously mentioned problems, derive from a lack of leadership. There is no public or private group willing
and able to take national leadership in demanding better spectrum
management. The subject is technical
and unexciting; the process of decision-making is secretive; and few people
feel that they are intimately affected.
It is not surprising that no one has come forward to arouse in the
public a feeling that better management is needed. Yet such strong, vocal leadership is probably the only hope for
action in the near future to deal with the crisis of spectrum management.
B. Improved FCC Administration and
Decision-making
A major
unresolved question is whether the solution to the FCC's spectrum allocation
and utilization problems lies with major institutional restructuring, or
whether the reform of internal administrative procedures is a practical and
adequate solution.
Prof. Glen O.
Robinson has written:
Today in the
field of spectrum allocation and management, the necessity to confront the
complex issues of public policy, particularly to establish priorities of need
among competing uses and to make hard choices among competing demands -- or at
least make acceptable, workable compromises -- cannot be avoided by elaborate
reorganization plans or sweeping changes in administrative process. (53 Minn. L. Rev. 1179, 1268 (1969).) [*367]
According to Professor Robinson, tangible resources -- budget, staff,
and effective leaders -- are what is needed for administrative reform. But the current management has other,
intangible needs if it is to develop a new approach to its task: The need to
view spectrum problems as a whole; the need to anticipate and plan for future
spectrum requirements; and the need to obtain better and more complete data on
the use of the spectrum.
A major stumbling
block to the rational management of the radio spectrum is in fact conceptual:
Our communications problems are seen as myriad rather than unitary. Look at the goal diversity of programming as
an example. The issues involved in this
broad policy -- communications satellites, cable television UHF development,
direct satellite broadcasting in the upper UHF channels, pay television,
regulation of network program ownership, alternative funding for noncommercial
broadcasting, encouragement of local programming, copyright protection in
broadcasting, duplication of AM radio programming on FM, and alternative uses
for educational stations -- can most comfortably be considered in isolation
from one another. But we must forsake
this comfort. Because our core communications
problems -- and solutions -- derive from a burgeoning technology, we must view
technology's various ramifications as parts of a whole.
Satellites, UHF
television, and cable television have implications for television transmission,
the number of channels available, and hence for possible improvement in
programming. Satellites also have
implications for frequency management and telephone and other home
communication transmission, as does the cable network supplying cable
television. Similarly, when one block
of the spectrum is designated for a particular use, other more important uses
not then being considered are foreclosed or their development impeded. We cannot, therefore, deal with each
alternative in isolation, ignoring larger communications problems.
Throughout all
our communications problems runs the need for awareness, anticipation, and
long-range forecasting. But the Federal
Government has no coordinated administration of the communications field, and
virtually no long-range planning efforts or research and development program at
all. American's communications
industries add substantially to our gross national product -- at least $20
billion from broadcasting-related activities alone. Yet the FCC is given only $25 million -- out of a Federal budget
of $200 billion -- to regulate this giant industry, among others. It is understandable that the agency's
activities are limited almost entirely to broadcast license grants and common
carrier ratemaking. Frequency
management is not possible without research and planning. And yet there is no central policy planning
unit in the FCC's organization, leaving almost all social and technical
research in communications to be done outside the Government.
The concept of
local programming by broadcasters is one example of policy planning
failures. The benefits of local
programming supposedly justify much FCC regulation -- the clamped,
interference-ridden AM radio band, and the allocation of 420 extremely valuable
megacycles [*368] to UHF television, to cite two
examples. Yet how much local
programming is really being provided?
How much can profitably be provided? How much should be provided to
promote effective community development?
What are the opportunity costs of allocating the spectrum in this
way? And how do the benefit compare
with these costs? These are some of the
questions that need to be answered before we can achieve efficient and
equitable frequency management. But
these are the kind of questions that can only be answered if the FCC and
Congress are willing to give communications problems the funds and manpower for
effective planning and research.
Another reason
for the FCC's aversion to long-range policy planning is the Commission's
conception of self. The Commission
tends to think of itself as a court, reacting only to those matters placed
before it by interested parties pursuing their own economic interests. And after the issues for determination are
specified, the Commission usually makes decisions that are based almost
exclusively upon information and analysis supplied by these same parties. There is at best only limited recognition of
the desirability of specifying all alternatives -- and little capacity to
evaluate them when presented to the agency from the outside. The Commission's consideration of the
domestic satellite question is an example.
Domestic satellites for the United States were first proposed, not by
the FCC, but by ABC. The Ford Foundation
subsequently filed a proposal that radically changed the frame of reference in
which the question was being discussed -- including the concept of a people's
dividend from the massive public investment in the space program. But for the Ford Foundation's proposal, the
Commission would probably not have considered these policy alternatives, and
the proposals for adequate funding and interconnection of the Public
Broadcasting Corp. would not have received the impetus they currently have.
This aversion to
planning might have sufficed in simpler days, but the Nation is now nearing an
emergency in radio spectrum management.
There is congestion in land mobile and uncertainty as to the
future. There is ample spectrum in UHF
but no certainty as to development opportunities. The AM band is nearly full; the FM band had never been properly
explored and exploited. Industrial
users, citizen band users, safety users, and other public users are hindered by
inadequate management planning. The FCC
should be planning and managing, not intensifying and exacerbating the
problem. Every day our Nation pays an
increasing price in irretrievably lost GNP for our failure to manage properly
our radio spectrum. Someday the current
crisis of confusion and waste may reach such proportions as to bring it to
national consciousness. As of now, with
all the major crises facing this Nation, it remains just another public
resource vanishing in a quagmire of inept management.
II. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DOCKET 18261
As I mentioned
above, I have hesitations about the specific results reached in these dockets
-- especially the sharing result in docket 18261. Perhaps by itemizing my objections to the sharing plan, it
will [*369] become clearer why I am reluctant to vote for the plan --
although I am even more hesitant to vote against it without greater knowledge
of the alternatives. I would much
prefer the staff to present these alternatives to us rather than a single,
recommended decision. Perhaps then I
could make what I consider to be a reasoned decision. I am sure that each of my specific objections has an answer -- in
many cases, I assume, a very reasonable answer. But taken cumulatively they raise significant doubts in my
mind. I imagine that my colleagues had
similar doubts; I am sure that they are sincere in their belief that this
solution is both practical and necessary.
My only regret is that the crisis of spectrum use and political
necessities compelled an immediate vote on this matter, when few are convinced
that we have done much to solve the long-range problem.
(1) Both the
land mobile users and the UHF broadcaster opposed any sort of sharing
scheme. They both urged us to adopt a
different course of relief. I expect
that the Commission majority would use this fact to argue that we have arrived
at a reasonable compromise. But lacking
greater information from the staff, I feel that I must rely heavily on the
comments filed before us and the record developed at the oral argument. And they can only lead me to the conclusion
that sharing is likely to be unworkable and undesirable.
(2) Everyone involved
with this proceeding admits that sharing will produce some interference to UHF
television reception. The argument is
whether the interference will be significant or insignificant. I realize that local terrain and other local
characteristics make any engineering conclusion extremely imprecise. But before I act I would have liked to have
known more about the interference that we may expect in these top 10 markets.
(3) Interference
of any sort is an economic tax on the broadcaster subjected to the interference. His signal becomes less attractive to
viewers and therefore less attractive to advertisers. The interference may be slight and the resultant economic penalty
slight. But for some UHF broadcasters
-- who are already experiencing financial crises -- any penalty may be
fatal. If we must cause slight
degradation of the signal of any broadcaster, I would much prefer that those
better able to absorb the loss be chosen.
To force sharing on the independent UHF stations and the educational
broadcasters who currently inhabit these channels is, I feel, to make an
economic decision without sufficient knowledge of the impact upon the
broadcasters.
(4) Giving this
spectrum to land mobile without a time limit on their occupation of the region
diminishes much of the incentive for land mobile to develop the higher regions
of the spectrum given them in docket 18262.
I am cognizant of the immediate need for spectrum felt by land mobile
operators, and I hate to penalize them for our past failures of planning and
management. But I do feel that this
decision will do them little long-range good.
It seems likely to me that in the time this decision will undoubtedly
take to drag through administrative proceedings -- reconsideration and
allocation of the spectrum to specific uses -- and possible court challenges
and appeals, the equipment manufacturers of land mobile equipment could have
provided relief in other regions of the spectrum. I think that this Commission is fooling [*370] itself if it
believes that today we have provided immediate relief to anyone. I would have preferred to have granted
sharing only in those markets where specific needs were shown, and I would have
preferred to have limited the tenure of the land mobile users so that they
would be aware that they had a need to develop their capability to operate at
higher spectrum regions.
(5) I think that
the administration of the sharing plan may prove to be an impossibility. In this country there are approximately
one-quarter million land mobile base stations and millions of mobile
operators. We can license the users of
this spectrum but we really cannot police them to make sure that they comply
with our restrictions. In the past we
have often found that our records do not reflect the realities of transmissions. We do not have exact records on the base
stations, and, of course, we can never control the movement of the mobile
operators. We are engaging in a number
of assumptions in authorizing sharing of the spectrum; many of them seem to me
to be of dubious validity. For example,
we have in several of the markets divided the city in half. And we assume that by limiting the placement
of the base station, we can control nearly exactly the operation of the
mobiles. We assume that mobile
operators will operate within 35 miles of their base stations. We have no way of knowing this to be true,
except for the fact that reception beyond that point is often difficult. I can foresee our regulation in this area
becoming a patchwork through waivers and exceptions. I doubt if the Commission will require a mobile delivery truck to
serve only part of a town to the exclusion of the other part. And if such regulation were tried, it could
not be enforced.
(6) Even if our
sharing plan works no hardship on existing UHF television stations, the freeze
of assignments will certainly hamper the growth of the UHF service
nationally. If we are going to abandon
our commitment to local broadcasting through UHF, then we should state our
intention directly. UHF needs to become
more powerful nationally, so as to develop viewer habits. By lessening its development in some areas,
we hurt viewer reception of UHF everywhere.
(7) The sharing
proposal in Detroit and Cleveland will involve amending our treaties with
Canada. It is inconceivable to me that
we should proceed with this plan, without first meeting with Canadian
representatives and getting some tentative approval from them.
(8) I am
reluctant to tamper with our assignments in certain cities without first
understanding what hardship we will impose on those cities. For example, in Philadelphia we are
reassigning channel 19, New Brunswick, N.J., to a higher, less-attractive UHF
channel. This station is in the chain
of educational stations held by the New Jersey Public Broadcasting
Authority. To my knowledge we have not
checked with them to see if reassignment is feasible consistent with their
statewide plan.
(9) Finally, I
believe that this scheme is simply a response to a political situation. Land mobile operators have become
increasingly upset with the regulation dispensed by this Commission. Our response is not a well-thought-out plan;
it is not the result of planning; rather it is an immediate response to an
immediate need. For example, the [*371]
plan applies to the top 10 markets only. If it is feasible why limit it to 10 markets? (In fact I might point out that the 10
markets were picked on the basis on 1960 census data, and the projections for
1970 indicate that St. Louis will soon become the 10th largest city ahead of
Cleveland.) The reason that these cities were picked was that the Commission
felt compelled to do something. It felt
that it had to have something to point to as work in this area. I am not maligning the efforts of the
majority, I do not dispute that something had to be done. I just regret that the regulatory situation
exists where our only response must be a political decision.
III. AN ALTERNATIVE TO DOCKET 18261
I have discussed
my reluctance to vote for the sharing plan without some consideration of
alternatives. Several months ago,
Commissioner Robert E. Lee and I, with our personal staffs, prepared a proposal
as an alternative. If our decision had
been less rushed, our proposal might have warranted more consideration. As it was, the only decision that could be
made was made by the majority. But I do
want to put forth our proposal as an example of an alternative to the result
reached by the majority. At first
glance it may seem quixotic, but I would submit that it is no more impractical
than a sharing scheme with imprecise limits and great difficulties of
enforcement.
A. Background
The proposal,
described below, was conceived by the two of us following the oral arguments in
January on dockets 18261 and 18262. We
initially began to consider alternatives to these dockets because of our
dissatisfaction with them. They
appeared to be impractical, short-sighted, and of dubious necessity. Our proposal began as a long-range plan to
open up needed spectrum for land mobile.
Initially a little spectrum (one television channel or 6 MHz) would be
reallocated to land mobile radio users, but additional spectrum would be
promised as the need was demonstrated and the efficient use of the existing
spectrum was shown. "One
shot" solutions for land mobile users are simply irresponsible. In reallocating spectrum to land mobile
users, we found that with very little additional disruption we could rearrange
the table of television assignments to relieve some of the problems in three
other troublesome areas: (1) The inability of UHF television to become viable
by getting network affiliations; (2) the inability of educational television --
predominately on UHF assignments -- to reach large audiences; and (3) the
inability of ABC to obtain affiliates in some markets on an equal basis with
the other two networks.
B. The Proposal
Our proposal
takes as given the present television assignments in the designated
markets. No attempt is made to increase
the number of stations in each market.
But rather the proposal calls simply for a shuffling of the channel
assignments of individual stations within
[*372] each market. To accomplish the objectives mentioned
above, the following factors would be considered in determining the licensing
rearrangement:
(a) All educational
stations shall be given VHF authorizations.
(b) There shall
be equal VHF/UHF network affiliation nationally so that each network shall have
half its affiliates with UHF assignments.
(c) Only channel
2 of the VHF shall be cleared out for land mobile usage at this time.
(d) If, in the
rearrangement plan, there are no "open" frequencies, then a
"last one in, first one out" formula shall be followed. Those stations which lose their assignments
shall be compensated by the U.S. Government.
Any station forced to move into the UHF band, shall have an option to
swap with a lower UHF frequency (except for an educator).
(e) At all times
a course of "least resistance" shall be followed, that is, the
rearrangement scheme shall cause as little disruption as possible of the status
quo.
(f) Any
rearrangement shall have as equal an impact as possible on all networks and
multiple owners.
C. Results
We feel that a
rearrangement plan which follows these factors will accomplish the objectives
we have described.
1. Land Mobile. -- By clearing VHF channel 2 for the immediate use of land
mobile, the 6 MHz gained will meet their immediate needs. By indicating that additional VHF channels
can be cleared out as needed, the proposal makes long-term sense for land
mobile. It seems to us to be infinitely
more sensible to give spectrum to land mobile users more nearly adjacent to
that they already have than to try to find patches of spectrum for their use
spread across the spectrum band as their needs increase. The adjustment to the use of this spectrum
will be more economic and will require less development time than would the
adjustment to the use of spectrum now allocated to UHF television. And of course there is an historical precedent
for such a plan. The Commission has already
taken channel 1 of VHF television for the needs of other spectrum users.
We recognize
that land mobile users feel that they need far more than 6 MHz of spectrum to
alleviate the "crisis." To that claim we have two answers. First, we feel that better management
techniques will do much to accomplish the objective of better utilization of
the spectrum. The Commission, following
the advice of the Stanford Research Institute, has embarked on a course of
seeking better spectrum management. By
the time that the 6 MHz of channel 2 become insufficient, this management
experiment of the Commission's should be far enough along to yield some answers
of whether more spectrum really is needed for land mobile use.
Our second
answer to the predictable plaints of land mobile users that 6 MHz is not enough
is that we are prepared eventually to give them all of the spectrum now
allocated to VFH television. We
would [*373] put the industries -- both broadcasters and equipment
manufacturers -- on notice that over the next one to three decades we
anticipate that all television will be moved to the UHF frequencies. The "timetable" for the
reallocation of VHF television to land mobile will depend upon a number of
considerations, including the speed with which manufacturers can develop
appropriate equipment and the real, demonstrated need of land mobile
users. We repeat this last point to
emphasize that we intend to look closely at future land mobile requests for
spectrum, and insist that the existing spectrum is being used in the most
efficient way possible.
One other factor
of the speed with which we move all television into the UHF region of the
spectrum deserves special mention. Some
people have argued that for technical reasons the spectrum space allocated to
UHF television is insufficient for all the television desired by the
country. If so, we may have to
reallocate additional spectrum when the need develops. The only requirement we would put on the
additional spectrum is that it be contiguous to that presently being used. But we also feel that technology may develop
sufficiently by the time additional spectrum is needed to enable us to put many
more television channels in the 420 MHz now assigned to UHF television. For example, it is possible that a
television signal may be broadcast over less than 6 MHz of spectrum, or that
the 6-channel separation between adjacent stations may be relaxed. Of course, for these changes a transition
period would be required, but we believe the Commission should begin planning
now so that we will be able to face the contingencies of spectrum needs in the
future.
2. UHF Viability. -- The burden of rearranging the channel assignments within each
market shall be distributed equally among each of the networks, so that each
network has approximately an equal number of VHF and UHF affiliates. The task of devising the new assignments
will require that market size be taken into account in the rearrangement. Obviously the objective will be to equalize
the UHF-VHF division nationally -- so each network initially will be at a
disadvantage in individual markets.
We feel that the
channel shuffling of network affiliates -- with a requirement that the network
remain affiliated with that station -- is the most practical and most immediate
way of assuring UHF equality with VHF.
If viewers must watch UHF to receive network programming that they have
previously received on VHF, there will soon develop comparability of receivers,
antennas, tuners, etc., between the two television services. Viewers will become accustomed to watching
UHF, and the independent UHF stations will benefit. There are years of advertising tradition and viewer habit to
overcome, and probably only with such major restructuring can UHF become equal
with VHF in the near future.
3. Educational Television. -- The immediate placement in the VHF
spectrum of one educational station in each market is a goal long sought by
educational broadcasters. As it is
necessary to move channel assignments about now, and in the future, we would
contemplate giving the public broadcasting stations the highest VHF
assignments, so that they would be the last to be moved from VHF in any given
market. [*374] Educational television starts at a
disadvantage with commercial television because of the tremendous revenue
generated by the networks. To increase
further this disadvantage by placing ETV in the newer, less-used UHF region
insures that many people will never be exposed in any significant degree to the
advantage of educational television.
4. ABC Network. -- ABC has long been handicapped in its competition with the
other networks by the fact that in several markets it is affiliated with a UHF
station, while CBS and NBC have VHF affiliates. Our proposal would strengthen ABC by evening out the UHF-VHF
affiliations for all three networks. In
some markets it would end up as the only VHF outlet. Hopefully, the strengthening of ABC will benefit the public by
making it a more viable competitor with the other networks.
D. Conclusion
No solution to the
land mobile problem is fully satisfactory to all parties or the public
interest. All solutions cause problems
elsewhere. All must take account of the
need for practical political support.
We believe that this proposal minimizes the adverse impact of any
solution to the land mobile problem. We
believe it clearly makes the most long-range sense, for land mobile and for
commercial television. We believe it
has the added advantages of augmenting -- rather than ignoring or making worse
-- the positions of educational television, land mobile radio, UHF television,
long-range UHF-VHF television "system" equality and viability, and
more relative equality among the three major networks.
We feel that all
members of the Commission will agree that the objectives of our proposal are
ones to be encouraged. We believe that
the implementation of our proposal would substantially meet the
objectives. And finally we think that
the sample plan in the appendix shows our proposal is practical and can be
implemented with relatively little disruption of the present television
assignments.
We do not for a
moment urge that ours is the solution to our land mobile problems. Had we had more time, and staff assistance,
we might well have come up with more (and better) proposals. We do believe that our proposal is a much
more viable alternative -- politically and rationally -- than may appear at
first blush. Be that as it may, it is
at least an illustration of the kind of long-range solution -- integrated with
the Commission's other priorities -- that we believe the Commission should be
endeavoring to develop for land mobile policy.
There comes a
time, however, when repeated failure at rational, long-range management creates
crises that force short-sighted, irrational solutions. I believe we have now reached that
time. Accordingly, I concur.
DISSENTBY: LEE
DISSENT:
DISSENTING
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT E. LEE
I dissent to the
action of the Commission in approving the proposal to share the lower seven
UHF-TV channels (docket 18261) and to reallocate the upper 14 UHF-TV channels
to land mobile use (docket 18262).
Underlying these
actions is the disputed need for more spectrum space for land mobile
operations.
My record is
quite clear. I have supported land
mobile users and their professed needs throughout my career with the FCC.
[*361]
The proposals in these proceedings were undertaken with little evidence
that more spectrum is needed. I have
repeatedly pointed out my view that once block allocations are deeply buried,
the land mobile shortage would disappear.
This, combined with channel splitting, would give the relief for
channel-loading inequities which we all recognize.
I believe that
no elaborate licensing system, laudable and overdue as it may be, is necessary
to bring immediate relief to overloading that exists.
The SRI study
was largely ignored. If the study
demonstrated an inefficient utilization of land mobile channels in New York
City, as I believe it did, it goes without saying that similar and less compelling
conditions exist elsewhere.
When the FCC
studied the feasibility of UHF broadcasting, we chose New York City to be the
site of our tes3 under the theory that if UHF works in New York City, it works
anyplace. The same goes for land mobile
-- if there is no urgent problem there, can one exist anywhere else?
Of course the
FCC must plan for the future. I simply
do not believe that 5 to 10 years are necessary to produce marketable land
mobile equipment. By giving land mobile
manufacturers everything they want in the UHF-TV band, we have invited
wholesale footdragging by that industry to exploit the 900 MHz range. This was the story that I so well remember
in the use of the 450 MHz band. I
recall that certain large manufacturers refused to make 450 MHz equipment in
their honest but mistaken view that the frequencies were no good. I share the view of Mr. Schultz of Motorola
-- equipment can be made to work in the 900 MHz with a bent hairpin.
By its action
the FCC has shown its inability to withstand the clamor -- clamor for greater
equity in channel distribution has been met by giving away forever valuable
broadcasting spectrum. And who is to
say how much spectrum the potential broadcasters need? I for one do not feel that the answer lies
in CATV.
It is for these
reasons and those I have set forth elsewhere in these proceedings that I
dissent.
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER
H. REX LEE
I dissent to
both dockets 18261 and 18262. I do so
very reluctantly because I am aware of the acute need for additional spectrum
space for the land mobile users.
However, I do not believe the actions taken will do more than provide a
very temporary measure of relief to land mobile interests. These decisions are no more than feeble
efforts; and certainly do not arise to the merited distinction of being called
solutions. For so little, the
Commission's decisions also impose harm on users of an important segment of the
lower UHF-TV channels and to the educational needs of the Nation.
The first report
and order in docket 18261 initially affords only temporary relief through
sharing of one or two of the lower UHF-TV channels in the 10 largest urban
areas. In the recent oral argument
before the Commission, both the land mobile spokesmen and broadcasters [*362]
repeatedly claimed that sharing would not work. Their doubts are further deepened by the
Commission's unwillingness to attach any time limit to sharing privileges in
the broadcast spectrum. The report
merely states that "at the end of 5 years, and of course during this
period, we will evaluate the sharing proposition, as such, and make further
judgments. * * *"
Thus, two
important spectrum users are left sharing not only channels but doubts and
uncertainty. On the one hand, the land
mobile users may be optimistic in believing they can remain in this space,
expand, and eventually gain exclusive use of the lower seven UHF-TV
channels. Yet the fact remains: the
Commission may force land mobile to vacate this band in a few years. On the other hand, doubt and uncertainty
plague the broadcasters who have spent millions of dollars (with the
encouragement of the Commission) and are presently continuing their struggle to
attain and maintain viable broadcasting services. They, too, are left in the untenable position of not knowing
whether it is safe to pour more money into their operations when the Commission
may someday force them out of frequencies previously reserved to their use.
This uncertainty
could easily have been avoided had the Commission simply imposed an early time
limit on sharing and insisted on land mobile's early operation in the upper
part of the UHF band. This would have
put land mobile users and especially equipment manufacturers on notice that the
Commission was serious about the need for them to develop the necessary
equipment and to move promptly into the 900 MHz range for their permanent
solution.
This lack of
seriousness leaves open the very real possibility that soon after the
Commission works out its licensing plan for the sharing arrangements, land
mobile users will be back seeking further relief from "new
congestion" problems on the ground that manufacturers still haven't
provided the equipment necessary for operation in the higher band. When this happens, the Commission will once
again find itself in a dilemma -- unprepared to undertake an efficient spectrum
management program due to the lack of adequate financing from Congress, and
unwilling to force manufacturers and users into the upper UHF band above 900
MHz.
The Commission's
decisions hold especially disastrous implications for educational
objectives. The first report and order
in docket 18262 completely removes UHF-TV channels 70-83 from the reach of
educational broadcasting. I have no
quarrel with this action, because I strongly believe land mobile users
demonstrated the need for additional spectrum space and that this area of the
spectrum should be promptly developed in their service. Unfortunately, this action requires the
termination of docket 14229, wherein the Commission proposed making this range
of frequencies available for low-power community and educational television
stations.
However, the
elimination of this use did not mean the Commission was justified in
effectively denying educational users access to other spectrum resources,
especially when they are available. The
Commission should, at least, have given some assurance that educational and
instructional frequency needs could be served through an exclusive [*363]
reservation of the 2500-2690 MHz band where instructional television
fixed services are now accorded sharing privileges with the operational fixed
and international control users.
Instead, the
Commission merely stated that it is "convinced that at least some of the
Nation's critical needs for instructional and educational media facilities can
be met in the 2500-2690 MHz frequency band," because "ITFS is a
valuable and important supplement to educational broadcasting service."
If the
Commission, as it says, is so sure that "these instructional services
deserve maximum encouragement," I am at a loss to understand why it did
not at least put a temporary freeze on operational fixed and international
control use applications pending the final outcome of a separate further notice
of proposed rulemaking. Instead, the only
commitment is to promptly issue such a notice in the ITFS docket, No. 14744.
It is my fervent
hope that the Commission will move swiftly to allocate the 2500-2690 MHz band
exclusively for educational and instructional purposes. Even though ITFS is a non-broadcast,
point-to-point service, that allocation is practically the only spectrum space
left for educational users, especially in the large urban areas where the need
for multi-channel instructional facilities is the greatest.
The Commission
must reiterate its special responsibility to educational users, to protect
their right to access to spectrum space -- even over long periods of time when
the spectrum reservation may not be completely utilized. This is not a new responsibility. In the 1952 sixth report and order covering
television allocations, the Commission defended its reservation of channels for
noncommercial educational stations by recognizing that "it is of the
utmost importance to this Nation that a reasonable opportunity be afforded
educational institutions to use television as a noncommercial education medium,
and that at the same time it will generally take the educational community
longer to prepare for the operation of its own television stations than it
would for some commercial broadcasters" (1 R.R. 614).
Nothing in the
intervening years has occurred to change this assessment. It now applies as well to ITFS, and should
not be forgotten after 18 years when Federal, State, and local agencies find
that budgetary strictures hinder their ability to authorize funds for
educational technologies. Now, more
than ever, the Commission's past policy should stand to prove there is no
justification for giving away education's future in public airwaves merely as a
palliative to relieve some present pressure of commercial and industrial users.
APPENDIX:
APPENDIX A
Parties Who
Filed Comments
Aeronautical
Radio, Inc.
All-Channel
Television Society
American
Automobile Association, Inc.
American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
American
Hospital Association
American Medical
Association
American
Newspaper Publishers Association
American
Petroleum Institute (Central Committee)
American
Telephone and Telegraph Co.
American Transit
Association
American
Trucking Associations
Associated
Public-Safety Communications Officers, Inc.
Associated
Public-Safety Communications Officers, Inc., Northern California Chapter
Association of
American Railroads
Augusta
Telecasters, Inc.
Blonder-Tongue
Laboratories, Inc.
Broadcasting
Affiliates, Corp.
California
Hospital Association, San Francisco, Calif.
California
Public Safety Radio Association
California State
Communications Advisory Board
Cardio-Alert
System
CHA Committee on
Emergency Health Services for the California Hospital Association
Charlotte
Telecasters, Inc.
City of Dallas,
Tex.
City of New York
Police Department
City of Walnut
Creek, Calif.
Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc.
Communications
Bureau for the Police Department, County of Suffolk (Hauppauge, N.Y.)
Communications
Industries, Inc.
Community
Telecasters of Cleveland, Inc.
Construction and
Industrial Machinery Technical Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Contra Costa
County, Health and Medical Services, Martinez, Calif.
Corporation for
Public Broadcasting
Delta
Communications Corp.
D.H. Overmyer
Telecasting Co., Inc.
Eagle
Broadcasting Co.
Electronic
Industries Association, Consumer Products Division
Forest
Industries Radio Communications
Forestry,
Conservation Communications Association
Georgia State
Board of Education
Indian River
Television, Inc.
International
Association of Fire Chiefs
International
Bridge, Tunnel, & Turnpike Association, Inc.
International
Municipal Signal Association
International
Taxicab Association
Jay Sadow
Jefferson County
Public Schools
Joint Council on
Educational Telecommunications
Land Mobile
Communications Council
Land Mobile
Communications Section, Industrial Electronics Division, Electronic Industries
Association
Leon County
Communications Corp.
Maximum Service
Telecasters, Association of
Memphis
Telecasters, Inc.
Mercury Media,
Inc.
Merrimack Valley
Communications, Inc.
Motorola, Inc.
Muskegon
Telecasting Co., Inc.
National
Association of Broadcasters
National
Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc.
National
Association of Educational Broadcasters
National
Association of Manufacturers
National
Association of Radiotelephone Systems
National
Broadcasting Co., Inc.
National Cable
Television Association, Inc.
National
Committee for Utilities Radio
National
Executive Committee for Forest Industries Radio Communications
Nationwide
Communications, Inc.
North Alabama
Broadcasters, Inc.
Philadelphia
Mobile Telephone Co.
Philip Y. Hahn,
Inc.
Plains
Television Corp.
Radio
Specialists Co.
Radio Systems,
Inc.
Ratelco, Inc.
San Mateo County
Board of Education
Small Business
Administration
Special
Industrial Radio Service Association, Inc.
Springfield
Television Broadcasting Corp.
Steel City
Broadcasting Co.
Summit
Broadcasting Co.
Upper Valley
Television Broadcasters, Inc.
@u.s.
c/ommunications of Philadelphia, Inc.
Virginia
Telecasters, Inc.
Washington State
Patrol
WATR, Inc.
WBJA-TV, Inc.
Western
Washington Cooperative Interference Committee
Westport
Television, Inc.
Winnebago
Television Corp.
WKY Television
Systems, Inc.
WSUN, Inc.
Parties Who
Filed Reply Comments
American Transit
Association
WANE-TV
American
Trucking Association
Special
Industrial Radio Service Association
International
Association of Fire Chiefs
WGBH Educational
Foundation
Association of
Maximum Service Telecasters
Society of
Automotive Engineers-Subcommittee
National
Association of Educational Broadcasters
Zenith Radio
Corp.
General Electric
Co. -- Mobile Radio Department
National
Association of Radiotelephone Systems
Land Mobile
Section of EIA
Jefferson County
Public Schools
Central
Committee of American Petroleum Institute
National
Association of Broadcasters
National
Association of Business and Educational Radio
WPHL-TV, U.S.
Communications of Philadelphia, Inc.
University of
Vermont
City of Dallas
WKY Television
System, Inc.
Kear and Kennedy
WHNT-TV
American
Broadcasting Co.
Forward
Television, Inc.
WFIE, Inc.
Denver Post,
Inc.
National
Committee for Utilities Radio (NCUR)
Motorola, Inc.
RKO General
International
Municipal Signal Association
International
Association of Chiefs of Police
American
Automobile Association
National
Association of Manufacturers
Taft
Broadcasting Co.
Palmetto Radio
Corp.
Newhouse
Broadcasting Corp.
Land Mobile
Communications Council
Georgia State
Board of Education
All Channel
Television Society
California
Public Safety Radio Association
Communications
Engineer, City of Burbank, Calif.
Forestry
Conservation Communication Association
National TV
Translator Association
Consumer
Products Division
Michiana
Telecasting
Summit
Broadcasting Co., Inc.
Associated Press
(AP)
Winnebago
Television Corp. & Plains Television Corp.
Associated
Public Safety Communications Officers
APPENDIX B
Parties Who
Appeared at Oral Argument of January 22 and 23, 1970
Association of
Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.
Electronic
Industries Association, Consumer Products Division
Forward
Television, Inc.
Plains
Television Corp.
RKO General
& WKY Television System
Summit
Broadcasting Co., Inc.
U.S.
Communications Corp.
Winnebago
Television Corp.
All-Channel
Television Society
Joint Council on
Educational Telecommunications
National
Association of Educational Broadcasters
National
Association of Broadcasters
American
Telephone & Telegraph Co.
National
Association of Radio Telephone Systems
Communications
Industries, Inc.
Mobile Telephone
Co., Inc.
Aeronautical
Radio, Inc.
General Electric
Co.
National TV
Translator Association
Land Mobile
Communications Council
Electronic
Industries Association, Industrial Electronics Division, Land Mobile
Communications Section
Associated
Public-Safety Communications Officers, Inc.
International
Association of Chiefs of Police
City of Dallas
International
Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association, Inc.
International
Municipal Signal Association
Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration
National
Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc.
American
Newspaper Publishers Association and the Associated Press
Association of
American Railroads
Central
Committee on Communication Facilities of the American Petroleum Institute
Forest
Industries-Radio Communications
Special
Industrial Radio Service Association, Inc.
Utilities
Telecommunications Council
General Electric
(Mobile Radio Dept.)
Motorola, Inc.
APPENDIX C
Part 2 of the
Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission is amended to
read as follows:
Part 2 of the
Commission's rules is amended as follows: 1.
In section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, the frequency band
470-512 MHz, is amended in columns 7-11, as set forth Below, and a new
footnote, NG 66, is added. "§ 2.106 [Amended].
Federal
Communications Commission
|
Band MHz) |
Service |
Class of
station |
Frequency |
Nature OF
SERVICES |
|
|
|
|
Nature of
stations |
|
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
470-512 |
BROADCASTING. LAND MOBILE. NG66. |
Television broad- casting. Land Mobile |
|
BROADCAST. |
|
|
PUBLIC SAFETY. |
|||
|
|
INDUSTRIAL. |
|||
|
|
LAND TRANSPORTATION. |
|||
|
|
DOMESTIC PUBLIC. |
* * *
NG66 The
frequency band 470-512 MHz is allocated for use in the Broadcasting and Land
Mobile Radio Services. In the Land
Mobile Services it is available for assignment in the Domestic Public, Public
Safety, Industrial, and Land Transportation Radio Services at, or in the
vicinity of, the 10 largest urbanized areas of the United States, as defined in
the U.S. census of population, 1960, vol. 1, table 23, in accordance with the
allocations set out in the following table and subject to the standards and
conditions set forth in parts 21, 89, 91, and 93 of this chapter.
|
Urbanized
area |
TV channel |
|
New York-northeastern New Jersey |
14, 15 |
|
Los Angeles |
14, 20 |
|
Chicago-northwestern Indiana |
n(1) |
|
Philadelphia, Pa.-New Jersey |
n(1) |
|
Detroit, Mich |
15, 16 |
|
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif |
16, 17 |
|
Boston, Mass |
14, 16 |
|
Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia |
17, 18 |
|
Pittsburgh, Pa |
14, 18 |
|
Cleveland, Ohio |
14, 15 |
n1 The specific channel availability
will be designated following the conclusion of a separate proceeding.
APPENDIX D
The following
rules are adopted and, in substance, will be incorporated in parts 21, 89, 91,
and 93 of the Commission's rules:
§ .
Antenna Height
Above Average Terrain (AAT). The
average of the antenna heights above the terrain from 2 to 10 miles from the
antenna for eight directions spaced evenly for each 45 degree of azimuth
starting with True North. In general, a
different antenna height will be determined in each direction from the
antenna. The average of these various
heights is considered the antenna height above average terrain.
Antenna Power
Gain. The square of the ratio of the
root-mean-square free space field intensity produced at 1 mile in the
horizontal plane, in mv. per meter for 1 kw. antenna input power to 137.6
mv./m. This ratio should be expressed
in decibels (db). (If specified for a
particular direction, antenna power gain is based on the field strength in that
direction only.)
Effective
Radiated Power. The product of the
antenna input power and the antenna power gain. This product should be expressed in watts. (If specified in a particular direction,
effective radiated power is based on the antenna power gain in that direction
only.)
* * *
§ .
Availability of
frequencies in the band 470-512 MHz.
Frequencies in
the band 470-512 MHz are available for assignment at, or in the vicinity of the
urbanized areas listed at table I, below, subject to the following conditions.
( ) The
transmitter (sites) for base (stations) shall be located not more than 50 miles
from the geographic center of an urbanized area, as defined at table I, below.
( ) Mobile units
shall not be operated beyond 30-mile radii of the associated base station or
stations.
( ) Base stations
operating on the frequencies available for land mobile use in any listed
urbanized area shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel
television stations in accordance with the values set out at tables A and E.
below, except for channels 15 in New York, N.Y., and Cleveland, Ohio, and
channel 16 in Detroit, Mich., where protection will be in accordance with the
values set forth at tables B and E below.
Base stations shall be located a minimum of 1 mile from local television
stations operating on TV channels separated by 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 TV channels
from the television channel in which the base station will operate.
( ) Mobile units
operating on the frequencies available for land mobile use in any given
urbanized area shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel
television stations in accordance with the values set out at tables E and F,
below, except for channels 15 in New York, N.Y., and Cleveland, Ohio, and
channel 16 in Detroit, Mich., where protection will be in accordance with the
values set forth in tables D and F below.
( ) The
television stations to be protected in any given urbanized area, in accordance
with the provisions of subsections ( ) and ( ), above, are identified in the
Commission's publication, Television Facilities to be Protected by Land Mobile
Stations Operating on Frequencies in the 450 through 512 MHz Band. The publication is available at the offices
of the Federal Communications Commission at Washington, D.C., or upon the
request of interested persons.
§ . Frequency stability.
|
|
All fixed and base stations (percent) |
All mobile
stations |
|
|
Frequency
range (MHz) |
(percent) |
||
|
Over 3 w. |
3 w. or less |
||
|
Below 25 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
|
25 to 50 |
.002 |
.002 |
.005 |
|
50 to 450 |
n1.0005 |
.0005 |
.005 |
|
450 to 950 |
n3.00025 |
.0005 |
n3.0005 |
|
Above 950 |
n2 |
n2 |
n2 |
§ . Emission limitations.
(b) * * *
|
|
Authorized |
Frequency |
|
Frequency
band (MHz) |
bandwidth |
deviation |
|
|
(kHz) |
(kHz) |
|
25 to 50 |
20 |
|
|
50 to 950 |
n1 n2 20 |
n1 n3 |
TABLE I. -- Frequency availability for land mobile use
|
Urbanized
area |
Geographic
center |
Frequencies |
|
|
|
North |
West |
(MHz) |
|
|
|
latitude |
longitude |
|
|
|
|
Boston, Mass |
42 degree 21 minute 24 second |
71 degree 03 minute 24 second |
Channel
14, 470-476. Channel 16, 482-488. |
|
|
Chicago, Ill |
41 degree 52 minute 28 second |
87 degree 38 minute 22 second |
n1. |
|
|
Cleveland, Ohio |
41 degree 29 minute 51 second |
81 degree 41 minute 50 second |
Channel
14, 470-476. Channel 15, 476-482. |
|
|
Detroit, Mich |
42 degree 19 minute 48 second |
83 degree 02 minute 57 second |
Channel
15, 476-482. Channel 16, 182-488. |
|
|
Los Angeles, Calif |
34 degree 03 minute 15 second |
118 degree 14 minute 28 second |
Channel
14, 470-476. Channel 20, 506-512. |
|
|
New
York-Northeastern New Jersey |
|
|||
|
40 degree 45 minute 06 second |
73 degree 59 minute 39 second |
Channel
14, 470-476. Channel 15, 476-482. |
||
|
Philadelphia, Pa |
39 degree 56 minute 58 second |
75 degree 09 minute 21 second |
n1. |
|
|
Pittsburgh, Pa |
40 degree 26 minute 19 second |
80 degree 00 minute 00 second |
Channel
14, 470-476. Channel 18, 494-500. |
|
|
San Francisco- Oakland,
Calif |
|
|||
|
37 degree 46 minute 39 second |
122 degree 24 minute 40 second |
Channel
16, 482-488. Channel 17, 488-494. |
||
|
Washington, D.C.- Maryland-Virginia |
|
|||
|
38 degree 53 minute 51 second |
77 degree 00 minute 33 second |
Channel
17, 488-494. Channel 18, 494-500. |
||
n1 The specific channel availability
will be designated following the conclusion of a separate proceeding.
TABLE A. -- Base station -- cochannel frequencies (50
db protection)
[Maximum
effective radiated power (ERP)]
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
50 |
100 |
150 |
200 |
250 |
|
162 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
160 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
155 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1, 000 |
1,000 |
|
150 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
950 |
775 |
725 |
|
145 |
850 |
750 |
650 |
575 |
500 |
|
140 |
600 |
575 |
475 |
400 |
350 |
|
135 |
450 |
400 |
335 |
300 |
255 |
|
130 |
350 |
300 |
245 |
200 |
185 |
|
125 n2 |
225 |
200 |
170 |
150 |
125 |
|
120 |
175 |
150 |
125 |
105 |
90 |
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
300 |
350 |
400 |
450 |
500 |
|
162 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
160 |
1, 000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
800 |
|
155 |
875 |
775 |
700 |
625 |
575 |
|
150 |
625 |
550 |
500 |
450 |
400 |
|
145 |
440 |
400 |
350 |
320 |
300 |
|
140 |
300 |
275 |
250 |
230 |
225 |
|
135 |
240 |
200 |
185 |
165 |
150 |
|
130 |
160 |
145 |
125 |
120 |
100 |
|
125 n2 |
110 |
100 |
90 |
80 |
75 |
|
120 |
80 |
70 |
60 |
55 |
n3 50 |
n1 In determining the average
elevation of the terrain, the elevations between 2 and 10 miles from the
antenna site are employed. Profile
graphs shall be drawn for 8 radials beginning at the antenna site and extending
10 miles therefrom. The radials should
be drawn for each 45 degree of azimuth starting with True North. At least 1 radial should be constructed in the
direction of the nearest cochannel and adjacent channel UHF television
stations. The profile graph for each
radial shall be plotted by contour intervals of from 40 to 100 feet and, where
the data permits, at least 50 points of elevation (generally uniformly spaced)
should be used for each radial. For
very rugged terrain 200 to 400 feet contour intervals may be used. Where the terrain is uniform or gently
sloping, the smallest contour interval indicated on the topographic map may be
used. The average elevation of the
8-mile distance between 2 and 10 miles from the antenna site should be
determined from the profile graph for each radial. This may be obtained by averaging a large number of equally
spaced points, by using a planimeter, or by obtaining the median elevation
(that exceeded by 50 percent of the distance) in sectors and averaging those
values. In the preparation of the
profile graphs the elevation or contour intervals shall be taken from U.S.
Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Maps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maps or Tennessee Valley Authority maps, whichever is the latest. If such maps are not published for the area
in question, the next best topographic information should be used.
n2 At this distance from transmitter
site of protected UHF television station.
n3 The effective radiated power (ERP
-- power levels listed in table are given in watts) and antenna height above
average terrain (AAT) shall not exceed the values given in table A.
NOTE. -- To determine the maximum permissible effective radiated power:
(1) Using the method specified in
sec. 73.611, determine the distance between the proposed land mobile base
station and the protected cochannel television station. If the exact mileage does not appear in
table A, the next lower mileage separation figure is to be used.
(2) Entering the table at the
mileage figure found in (1) above, find opposite, a selection of powers that
may be used for antenna heights ranging from 50 to 500 feet (AAT). If the exact antenna height proposed for the
land mobile base station does not appear in table A, use the power figure
beneath the next greater antenna height.
(3) If the power found to be
permitted following this procedure is lower than that determined hereafter from
table C, this lower figure is the maximum power that may be employed at the
proposed land mobile base station.
TABLE B. -- Base station -- cochannel frequencies (40
db protection)
[Maximum
effective radiated power (ERP)]
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
50 |
100 |
150 |
200 |
250 |
|
130 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
125 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
120 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
900 |
|
115 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
800 |
725 |
600 |
|
110 |
850 |
700 |
600 |
500 |
425 |
|
105 |
600 |
475 |
400 |
325 |
275 |
|
100 |
400 |
325 |
275 |
225 |
175 |
|
95 |
275 |
225 |
175 |
125 |
110 |
|
90 n2 |
175 |
125 |
100 |
75 |
50 |
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
300 |
350 |
400 |
450 |
500 |
|
130 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
125 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
850 |
750 |
n3 725 |
|
120 |
750 |
675 |
600 |
550 |
500 |
|
115 |
525 |
475 |
425 |
375 |
350 |
|
110 |
375 |
325 |
300 |
275 |
225 |
|
105 |
250 |
225 |
200 |
175 |
150 |
|
100 |
150 |
140 |
125 |
110 |
100 |
|
95 |
95 |
80 |
70 |
60 |
50 |
|
90 n2 |
|
|
|
|
|
n1 In determining the average
elevation of the terrain, the elevations between 2 and 10 miles from the
antenna site are employed. Profile
graphs shall be drawn for 8 radials beginning at the antenna site and extending
10 miles therefrom. The radials should
be drawn for each 45 degree of azimuth starting with True North. At least 1 radial should be constructed in
the direction of the nearest cochannel and adjacent channel UHF television
stations. The profile graph for each
radial shall be plotted by contour intervals of from 40 to 100 feet and, where
the data permits, at least 50 points of elevation (generally uniformly spaced)
should be used for each radial. For
very rugged terrain 200 to 400 feet contour intervals may be used. Where the tarrain is uniform or gently
sloping, the smallest contour interval indicated on the topographic map may be
used. The average elevation of the
8-mile distance between 2 and 10 miles from the antenna site should be
determined from the profile graph for each radial. This may be obtained by averaging a large number of equally
spaced points, by using a planimeter, or by obtaining the median elevation
(that exceeded by 50 percent of the distance) in sectors and averaging those
values. In the preparation of the
profile graphs the elevation or contour intervals shall be taken from U.S.
Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Maps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maps or Tennessee Valley Authority Maps, whichever is the latest. If such maps are not published for the area
in question, the next best topographic information should be used.
n2 At this distance from transmitter
site of protected UHF television station.
n3 The effective radiated power (ERP
-- power levels listed in table are given in watts) and antenna height above
average terrain (AAT) shall not exceed the values given in table A.
NOTE. -- To determine the maximum permissible effective radiated power:
(1) Using the method specified in
sec. 73.611, determine the distance between the proposed land mobile base
station and the protected cochannel television station. If the exact mileage does not appear in
table A, the next lower mileage separation figure is to be used.
(2) Entering the table at the mileage
figure found in (1) above, find opposite, a selection of powers that may be
used for antenna heights ranging from 50 to 500 feet (AAT). If the exact antenna height proposed for the
land mobile base station does not appear in table A, use the power figure
beneath the next greater antenna height.
(3) If the power found to be
permitted following this procedure is lower than that determined hereafter from
table C, this lower figure is the maximum power that may be employed at the
proposed land mobile base station.
TABLE C. -- Mobile station distance between
associated base station and protected cochannel TV station
[50 db protection]
|
Effective
radiated power (watts) |
Distance |
Effective
radiated power (watts) |
Distance |
|
|
(miles) |
|
(miles) |
|
200 |
155 |
25 |
125 |
|
150 |
151 |
10 |
117 |
|
100 |
145 |
5 |
112 |
|
50 |
135 |
|
|
TABLE D. -- Mobile station distance in miles between
associated land mobile base station and protected cochannel television station
[40 db protection]
|
Effective
radiated power (watts) |
Distance |
Effective radiated
power (watts) |
Distance |
|
|
(miles) |
|
(miles) |
|
200 |
130 |
25 |
110 |
|
150 |
125 |
10 |
105 |
|
100 |
120 |
5 |
100 |
|
50 |
115 |
|
|
TABLE E. -- Base station -- adjacent channel
frequencies
[Maximum effective radiated power
(ERP)]
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
50 |
100 |
150 |
200 |
250 |
|
67 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
66 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
65 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
64 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
63 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
62 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
525 |
|
61 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
700 |
450 |
250 |
|
60 n2 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
425 |
225 |
125 |
|
Distance in
miles |
Antenna
height in feet (AAT) n1 |
||||
|
|
300 |
350 |
400 |
450 |
500 |
|
67 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
|
66 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
n3 750 |
|
65 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
825 |
650 |
600 |
|
64 |
1,000 |
775 |
625 |
500 |
400 |
|
63 |
650 |
450 |
325 |
325 |
225 |
|
62 |
375 |
250 |
200 |
150 |
125 |
|
61 |
200 |
125 |
100 |
75 |
50 |
|
60 n2 |
100 |
75 |
50 |
|
|
n1 In determining the average
elevation of the terrain, the elevations between 2 and 10 miles from the
antenna site are employed. Profile
graphs shall be drawn for 8 radials beginning at the antenna site and extending
10 miles therefrom. The radials should
be drawn for each 45 degree of azimuth starting with True North. At least 1 radial should be constructed in
the direction of the nearest cochannel and adjacent channel UHF television
stations. The profile graph for each
radial shall be plotted by contour intervals of from 40 to 100 feet and, where
the data permits, at least 50 points of elevation (generally uniformly spaced)
should be used for each radial. For
very rugged terrain 200 to 400 feet contour intervals may be used. Where the terrain is uniform or gently
sloping, the smallest contour interval indicated on the topographic map may be
used. The average elevation of the
8-mile distance between 2 and 10 miles from the antenna site should be
determined from the profile graph for each radial. This may be obtained by averaging a large number of equally
spaced points, by using a planimeter, or by obtaining the median elevation
(that exceeded by 50 percent of the distance) in sectors and averaging those
values. In the preparation of the
profile graphs the elevation or contour intervals shall be taken from U.S.
Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Maps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps
or Tennessee Valley Authority Maps, whichever is the latest. If such maps are not published for the area
in question, the next best topographic information should be used.
n2 At this distance transmitter site
of protected UHF television station.
n3 The effective radiated power (ERP
-- power levels listed in table are given in watts) and antenna height above
average terrain shall not exceed the values given in table B.
NOTE. -- To determine the maximum permissible effective radiated power:
(1) Using the method specified in
sec. 73.611, determine the distance between the proposed land mobile base
station and the protected adjacent channel television station. If the exact mileage does not appear in
table C, the next lower mileage separation figure is to be used.
(2) Entering the table at the mileage
figure found in (1) above, find opposite, a selection of powers that may be
used for antenna heights ranging from 50 to 500 feet (AAT). If the exact antenna height proposed for the
land mobile base station does not appear in table C, use the power figure
beneath the next greater antenna height.
(3) If the power found to be
permitted following this procedure is lower than that determined heretofore
from table A, this lower figure is the maximum power that may be employed at
the proposed land mobile base station.
TABLE F. -- Mobile station distance in miles between
associated land mobile base station and protected adjacent channel television
station
|
Permissible
effective radiated power |
Distance |
Permissible
effective radiated power |
Distance |
|
(watts) |
(miles) |
(watts) |
(miles) |
|
200 |
90 |
25 |
90 |
|
150 |
90 |
10 |
90 |
|
100 |
90 |
5 |
90 |
|
50 |
90 |
|
|
APPENDIX E
UHF Television
Assignments Covered by Freeze Order
|
State and
community |
Channel |
|
California: |
|
|
Indio |
* 19 |
|
Chico |
* 18 |
|
Fort Bragg |
* 17 |
|
Santa Barbara |
14, * 20 |
|
Redding |
16 |
|
Santa Cruz |
* 16 |
|
Illinois: Joliet |
14 |
|
Massachusetts: Worcester |
14 |
|
Michigan: Bad Axe |
* 15 |
|
New Jersey: |
|
|
Atlantic City |
* 18 |
|
New Brunswick |
* 19 |
|
New York: Oneonta |
15 |
|
New Hampshire: Portsmouth |
17 |
|
Ohio: Ashtabula |
15 |
|
Rhode Island: Providence |
16 |
|
West Virginia: Wheeling |
14 |
APPENDIX F
Television
facilities to be protected by land mobile stations operating on frequencies in
the 470-512 MHz band
|
Urbanized area |
Frequencies available for land
mobile use (MHz) |
Television
facilities protected |
|
|
TV call |
Channel number |
||
|
Boston, Mass |
Channel 14, |
WHED-TV |
15 |
|
470-476. |
|
||
|
Channel 16, |
WHED-TV |
15 |
|
|
482-488. |
WMHT |
17 |
|
|
Cleveland,
Ohio. |
Channel 14, |
WTAP-TV |
15 |
|
470-476. |
|
||
|
|
WQEX |
16 |
|
|
Channel 15, |
WTAP-TV |
15 |
|
|
476-482 |
|
||
|
Detroit, Mich. |
Channel 15, |
WCMV-TV |
14 |
|
476-482. |
|
||
|
|
WANE-TV |
15 |
|
|
|
WNDU-TV |
16 |
|
|
Channel 16, |
WANE-TV |
15 |
|
|
482-488. |
WNDU-TV |
16 |
|
|
|
WJAN |
17 |
|
|
Los
Angeles, Calif. |
Channel 14, |
KEBS-TV |
15 |
|
470-476 |
KWHY-TV |
22 |
|
|
Channel 20, |
KCET |
28 |
|
|
506-512 |
|
||
|
New
York-Northeastern New Jersey. |
Channel 14, |
WFAN-TV |
14 |
|
470-476 |
|
||
|
|
WIET |
14 |
|
|
|
WLYH-TV |
15 |
|
|
|
WLIW-TV |
21 |
|
|
Channel 15, |
WLYH-TV |
15 |
|
|
476-482 |
WNEP-TV |
16 |
|
|
Pittsburgh,
Pa. |
Channel 14, |
WTAP-TV |
15 |
|
470-476 |
|
||
|
|
WENS |
22 |
|
|
Channel 18, |
WJAN |
17 |
|
|
494-500 |
WHIZ-TV |
18 |
|
|
|
WARD-TV |
19 |
|
|
|
WCTF |
19 |
|
|
San
Francisco-Oakland, Calif. |
Channel 16, |
KRAQ |
15 |
|
482-488. |
|
||
|
Channel 17, |
KCSM-TV |
14 |
|
|
488-494. |
|
||
|
Washington,
D.C.-Maryland-Virginia. |
Channel 17, |
WBOC-TV |
16 |
|
488-494. |
WPHL-TV |
17 |
|
|
Channel 18, |
WPHL-TV |
17 |
|
|
494-500. |
|
||
|
|
WETA-TV |
26 |
|
|
|
Television
facilities protected |
TV station
site |
||
|
|
|
coordinates |
|
|
|
Urbanized |
|
|||
|
area |
Co. Ch., |
TV station |
North |
West |
|
|
Adj. Ch., |
location |
latitude |
longitude |
|
|
Im and If |
|
|
|
|
Boston, |
|
|||
|
Mass |
Adj. Ch |
Hanover, N.H. |
43 degree 42 minute 30 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 degree 09 minute 16 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Hanover, N.H. |
43 degree 42 minute 30 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 degree 09 minute 16 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Albany- Sche- |
42 degree 38 minute 12 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 degree 59 minute 45 second |
|
|
|
nectady, N.Y. |
|
|
|
Cleveland, |
Adj. Ch |
Parkersburg, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 degree 20 minute 59 second |
81 degree 33 minute 56 second |
|
Ohio. |
|
W. Va. |
|
|
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Pittsburgh, Pa |
40 degree 26 minute 46 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 degree 57 minute 51 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Parkersburg, |
39 degree 20 minute 59 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 degree 33 minute 56 second |
|
|
|
W. Va. |
|
|
|
Detroit, Mich. |
Adj. Ch |
Mt. Pleasant, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 degree 34 minute 24 second |
84 degree 46 minute 21 second |
|
|
|
Mich. |
|
|
|
|
Co. Ch |
Ft. Wayne, Ind |
41 degree 05 minute 35 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 degree 10 minute 42 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
South Bend, |
41 degree 36 minute 20 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 degree 12 minute 45 second |
|
|
|
Ind. |
|
|
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Ft. Wayne, Ind |
41 degree 05 minute 35 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 degree 10 minute 42 second |
|
|
Co. Ch |
South Bend, |
41 degree 36 minute 20 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 degree 12 minute 45 second |
|
|
|
Ind. |
|
|
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Canton, Ohio |
40 degree 51 minute 04 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 degree 16 minute 37 second |
|
Los Angeles, |
Adj. Ch |
San Diego, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 degree 41 minute 48 second |
116 degree 56 minute 10 second |
|
Calif. |
If Beat |
Calif. |
|
|
|
|
|
Los Angeles, |
34 degree 13 minute 36 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 degree 03 minute 59 second |
|
|
|
Calif. |
|
|
|
|
If Beat |
Los Angeles, |
34 degree 13 minute 27 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 degree 03 minute 47 second |
|
|
|
Calif. |
|
|
|
New York- |
Co. Ch |
Washington, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 degree 57 minute 17 second |
77 degree 00 minute 17 second |
|
Northeast/ |
|
D.C. |
|
|
|
ern New |
Co. Ch |
Ithaca, N.Y. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 degree 23 minute 12 second |
76 degree 40 minute 10 second |
|
Jersey. |
Adj. Ch |
Lancaster, Pa |
|
|
|
|
If Beat |
Levittown, N.Y. |
40 degree 43 minute 55 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 degree 36 minute 12.4 second |
|
|
Co. Ch |
Lancaster, Pa |
40 degree 15 minute 45 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 degree 27 minute 49 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Scranton, Pa |
41 degree 10 minute 58 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 degree 52 minute 21 second |
|
Pittsburgh, |
Adj. Ch |
Parkersburg, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 degree 20 minute 50 second |
81 degree 33 minute 56 second |
|
Pa. |
|
W. Va. |
|
|
|
|
If Beat |
Pittsburgh, Pa |
40 degree 28 minute 50 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 degree 54 minute 14 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Canton, Ohio |
40 degree 51 minute 04 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 degree 16 minute 37 second |
|
|
Co. Ch |
Zanesville, Ohio |
39 degree 55 minute 42 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 degree 59 minute 06 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Johnstown, Pa |
40 degree 19 minute 47 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 degree 53 minute 45 second |
|
|
Adj. Ch |
Cleveland, Ohio |
41 degree 21 minute 19 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 degree 44 minute 24 second |
|
San Fran- |
Adj. Ch |
Sacramento, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 degree 37 minute 49 second |
120 degree 51 minute 20 second |
|
cisco-Oak- |
|
Calif. |
|
|
|
land, Calif. |
Im |
San Mateo, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 degree 32 minute 12 second |
122 degree 21 minute 02 second |
|
|
|
Calif. |
|
|
|
Washington, |
Adj. Ch |
Salisbury, Md |
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 degree 24 minute 15 second |
75 degree 34 minute 45 second |
|
D.C.-Mary- |
Adj. Ch |
Philadelphia, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 degree 02 minute 30 second |
75 degree 14 minute 24 second |
|
land-Vir- |
|
Pa. |
|
|
|
ginia. |
Adj. Ch |
Philadelphia, |
40 degree 02 minute 30 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 degree 14 minute 24 second |
|
|
|
Pa. |
|
|
|
|
Im |
Washington, |
38 degree 57 minute 49 second |
|
|
|
|
|
|
77 degree 06 minute 18 second |
|
|
|
D.C. |
|
|
APPENDIX
We expect to
hear the criticism that the objectives of our proposal are laudatory, but that
the mechanics are impractical. To show
that it would be possible to rearrange the table of television assignments with
very little disruption, we have prepared one sample plan for the Nation's
larger markets. We do not claim that
this plan is perfect -- or even that it should be preferred over any number of
other combinations and permutations possible which might be equally or more
acceptable. We only say that this
sample rearrangement shows that our proposal is feasible and deserving of
consideration.
First, a few
words of explanation about how this sample rearrangement plan was constructed:
(1) Only the top
15 markets were rearranged. As part B
shows, ABC has one less VHF affiliation than CBS and NBC. However, it should be remembered that only
15 markets were analyzed and this discrepancy would be easily rectified if the
scheme were extended. Also, a pattern
of least resistance was followed, and this necessitated moving the ABC
affiliate by itself in one or two different markets rather than moving both NBC
and CBS, or any other combination.
(2) The markets
were ranked according to the 1968 ARB.
(3)
"COMP" means that the station will be compensated for its incurred
expenses by the U.S. Government. (This
proposal would probably require our asking the Bureau of the Budget and our
appropriations committees for the money needed for rimplementation.)
(4) All ETV
stations are italicized.
(5)
"NA" means "not assigned."
(6) A serious
question could be raised as to whether such "ad hoc" switching and
swapping of stations should first be preceded by a complete reallocation of the
UHF frequencies. However, for the
purposes of illustrating the practicality and facility of vacating channel 2
and giving ETV stations a VHF frequency, the attached plan serves its purpose.
PART A
MARKET NO. 1. --
New York City (NWC: 5,685,700)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
ent- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
uhf |
vhf/ |
tion |
|
|
|
2 |
41 |
WCBS |
CBS |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
CBS |
|
4 |
|
WNBC |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
5 |
|
WNEW |
Metromedia |
|
||||
|
7 |
|
WABC |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
9 |
|
WOR |
RKO |
|
||||
|
11 |
|
WPIX |
New York Daily News |
|
||||
|
13 |
|
WNDT |
Educational Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Corp. (Newark). |
|
||||
|
25 |
|
WNYE |
Board of Education of |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
N.Y. |
|
||||
|
31 |
|
WNYC |
New York City |
|
||||
|
41 |
(COMP) |
WXTV(CP) |
Trans. Tel. Corp |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
(Patterson). |
|
||||
|
47 |
|
WNJU |
New Jersey TV, Inc. |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
(Linden). |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 2. --
Los Angeles (NWC: 3,126,700)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
28 |
KNXT |
CBS |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
CBS |
|
4 |
n1 68 |
KNBC |
NBC |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
NBC |
|
5 |
|
KTLA |
Golden West |
|
||||
|
7 |
|
KABC |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
9 |
|
KHJ |
RKO |
|
||||
|
11 |
|
KTTV |
Metromedia |
|
||||
|
13 |
|
KCOP |
KCOP-TV Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Corp. -- Copley. |
|
||||
|
22 |
|
KWHY |
Coast TV Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Corp. |
|
||||
|
28 |
4 |
KCET |
Community TV of S.C |
|
||||
|
34 |
|
KMEX |
Spanish International |
|
||||
|
40 |
|
KLXA |
International Panorama |
|
||||
|
50 |
|
KBSC |
Kaiser |
58 |
|
Appls. |
Educational |
|
|
68 |
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 4 has option to swap with
any lower UHF channel (except 58).
MARKET No. 3. --
Chicago (NWC: 2,364,900)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
wor k |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
7 |
WBBM |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
CBS |
CBS |
|
5 |
|
WMAQ |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
7 |
n1 68 |
WLS |
ABC |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
ABC |
|
11 |
|
WTTW |
Chicago ETV |
|
||||
|
20 |
|
WXXW |
Chicago ETV |
|
||||
|
26 |
|
WCIU |
Weigle Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
32 |
|
WFLD |
Field Publishing |
|
||||
|
38 |
|
WCFL(CP) |
Chicago Federation of |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Labor. |
|
||||
|
44 |
|
WSNS |
Harriscope |
|
||||
|
68 |
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 7 has option to swap with
any lower UHF channel (except 20).
MARKET No. 4. --
Philadelphia (NWC: 2,114,500)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
3 |
17 |
KYW |
Westinghouse |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
NBC. |
|
6 |
|
WFIL |
Triangle |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
10 |
n1 48 |
WCAU |
CBS |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
CBS. |
|
17 |
COMP |
WPHL |
U.S. Comm |
|
|
|
|
U.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comm. |
|
29 |
|
WTAF |
Taft |
|
||||
|
35 |
10 |
WUHY |
WHYY, Inc. (ed) |
|
||||
|
48 |
COMP |
WKBS |
Kaiser |
|
|
|
|
Kaiser. |
|
57 |
NA |
ED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 10 has option to swap
with any lower UHF channel (except 35).
MARKET No. 5. --
Boston (NWC: 1,705,000)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
7 |
WGBH |
WGBH Ed. Foundation |
|
||||
|
4 |
|
WBZ |
Westinghouse |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
5 |
|
WHDH |
Herald Traveler |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
7 |
n1 25 or 68 |
WNAC |
RKO |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
RKO |
|
25 |
|
WREP(CP) |
New Boston TV |
|
||||
|
44 |
|
WGBH |
WGBH Ed. Foundation |
|
||||
|
56 |
|
WKBG |
Kaiser |
|
||||
|
68 |
|
NEW(CP) |
Boston Heritage |
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 7
moves to either 25 or 68, whichever is last in. If 68 is last in, channel 7 would have option to swap with lower
UHF channel, except 44.
MARKET No. 6. --
Detroit (NWC: 1,508,300)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
20 |
WJBK |
Storer |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
Storer. |
|
4 |
n1 56 |
WWJ |
Evening News |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
Evening |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News. |
|
7 |
|
WXYZ |
WXYZ, Inc |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
20 |
COMP |
WJMY(CP) |
United Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
50 |
|
WKBD |
Kaiser |
|
||||
|
56 |
4 |
WTVS |
Detroit ETV Found |
|
||||
|
60 |
|
WXON |
WXON-TV |
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 4 would have option to
swap with channel 50.
MARKET No. 7. --
San Francisco (NWC: 1,413,700)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
26 |
KTVU |
Cox |
|
|
|
|
Cox. |
|
4 |
|
KRON |
Chronicle Publishing Co |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
5 |
|
KPIX |
Westinghouse |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
7 |
n1 38 |
KGO |
ABC |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
ABC. |
|
9 |
|
KQED |
Bay Area ETV |
|
||||
|
20 |
|
KEMO |
U.S. Comm |
|
||||
|
26 |
COMP |
KTSF(CP) |
KTSF-TV |
|
||||
|
32 |
|
KNEW |
Metromedia |
|
||||
|
38 |
|
KUDO |
Bay Broadcastiug |
|
||||
|
44 |
|
KBHK |
Kaiser |
|
||||
|
60 |
|
KQEC |
Bay Area ETV |
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 7 would have option to
swap with either channel 32 or 20.
MARKET No. 8. --
Washington, D.C. (NWC: 1,237,400)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
wo rk |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
4 |
|
WRC |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
5 |
|
WTTG |
Metromedia |
|
||||
|
7 |
26 |
WMAL |
Evening Star |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
Evening |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star. |
|
9 |
|
WTOP |
Post-Newsweek |
CBS |
|
|
CBS |
|
|
14 |
|
WFAN |
United TV |
|
||||
|
20 |
|
WDCA |
Channel 20, Inc |
|
||||
|
26 |
7 |
WETA |
GWETA |
|
||||
|
32 |
|
WETX(CP) |
GWETA |
|
||||
|
50 |
|
WGSP |
Ted Granik |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 9. --
Cleveland, Ohio (NWC: 1,234,300)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
3 |
|
WKYC |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
5 |
25 |
WEWS |
Scripps Howard |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
Scripps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Howard. |
|
8 |
|
WJW |
Storer |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
19 |
|
WCTF |
Comm. Telecasters |
|
||||
|
25 |
5 |
WVIZ |
Education TV Associa- |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
tion. |
|
||||
|
43 |
|
WUAB |
United Artists |
|
||||
|
61 |
|
WKBF |
Kaiser |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 10. --
Pittsburgh (NWC: 1,148,100)
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocati on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
22 |
KDKA |
Westinghouse |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
Westing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
house. |
|
4 |
|
WTAE |
Hearst |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
11 |
|
WIIC |
Cox |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
13 |
|
WQED |
Metropolitan Pittsburgh |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
ETV. |
|
||||
|
16 |
|
WQEX |
Metropolitan Pittsburgh |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
ETV. |
|
||||
|
22 |
COMP |
WENS |
Capital Comm |
|
||||
|
53 |
|
WPGH |
U.S. Comm |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 11.
-- Baltimore (NWC: 942,200)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Network UHF |
New network VHF |
Affiliate relocation |
Multiple owner relocation |
|
Present channel |
New channel |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affiliate |
||||
|
2 |
45 |
WMAR |
A. S. Abell (SUN) |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
Abell. |
|
11 |
n1 67 |
WBAL |
Hearst |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
Hearst. |
|
13 |
|
WJZ |
Westinghouse |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
24 |
|
WMET |
United Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
45 |
COMP |
WBFF |
Ches. Eng. Plant |
|
||||
|
54 |
|
NEW(CP) |
Baltimore Broadcasting |
|
||||
|
67 |
11 |
WMPB |
Maryland
Public Broadcasting. |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n1 Channel 11 would have option to
swap with channels 54 or 24.
MARKET No. 12.
-- Dallas (NWC: 834,400)
NO CHANGES NECESSARY
(Channel 2 is
not occupied and the educational station has a VHF channel.)
MARKET No. 13.
-- Hartford-New Haven (NWC: 830,800)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affiliate relocation |
Multiple-owner relocation |
|
Present channel |
New channel |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affiliate |
Network UHF |
Network VHF |
||
|
3 |
|
WTIC |
Travelers Insurance |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
8 |
24 |
WNHC |
Triangle |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
Triangle. |
|
18 |
|
WHCT |
RKO |
|
||||
|
24 |
8 |
WEDH |
Community ETV |
|
||||
|
30 |
|
WHNB |
Connecticut TV |
NBC |
NBC |
|
||
|
59 |
|
WTVU |
Impart Systems |
|
||||
|
61 |
|
WUHF(CP) |
Kappa TV |
|
||||
|
65 |
|
NEW |
Connecticut ETV |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 14. --
St. Louis (NWC: 825,100)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
re loca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
2 |
24 |
KTVI |
Newhouse |
ABC |
ABC |
|
ABC |
Newhouse. |
|
4 |
|
KMOX |
CBS |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
5 |
|
KSD |
Pulitzer |
NBC |
|
NBC |
|
|
|
9 |
|
KETC |
St. Louis ETV |
|
||||
|
11 |
|
KPLR |
220 TV |
|
||||
|
24 |
COMP |
KGSL |
Continental Summit |
|
|
|
|
Continen- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tal Sum- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mit. |
|
30 |
|
KDNL |
Evans |
|
||||
|
40 |
|
NEW |
ETV |
|
|
|
|
|
MARKET No. 15. --
Providence, R.I. (NWC: 778,200)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New |
New |
Affili- |
Multiple- |
|
Present |
New |
Call letters |
Owner |
Affili- |
net- |
net- |
ate |
owner |
|
channel |
channel |
|
|
ate |
work |
work |
reloca- |
relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UHF |
VHF |
tion |
|
|
10 |
36 |
WJAR |
The outlet |
NBC |
NBC |
|
NBC |
NBC. |
|
12 |
|
WPRI |
Poole Broadcasting |
CBS |
|
CBS |
|
|
|
6 |
|
WTEV |
Steinman |
ABC |
|
ABC |
|
|
|
36 |
10 |
WSBE |
State Board of Education |
|
||||
|
16 |
|
Open |
|
|||||
|
64 |
|
Open |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART B
New network
affiliation VHF/UHF
|
City |
UHF |
VHF |
|
New York |
CBS |
NBC, ABC. |
|
Los Angeles |
CBS, NBC |
ABC. |
|
Chicago |
ABC |
CBS, NBC. |
|
Philadelphia |
NBC, CBS |
ABC. |
|
Boston |
ABC |
CBS, NBC. |
|
Detroit |
NBC, CBS |
ABC. |
|
San Francisco |
ABC |
NBC, CBS. |
|
Washington |
ABC |
CBS, NBC. |
|
Cleveland |
ABC |
NBC, CBS. |
|
Pittsburgh |
CBS |
ABC, NBC. |
|
Baltimore |
NBC, CBS |
ABC. |
|
Dallas |
|
ABC, NBC, |
|
|
|
CBS. |
|
Hartford |
NBC, ABC |
CBS, |
|
St. Louis |
ABC |
NBC, CBS. |
|
Providence |
NBC |
ABC, CBS. |
Network totals
|
Network |
UHF |
VHF |
|
CBS |
6 |
9 |
|
NBC |
6 |
9 |
|
ABC |
7 |
8 |