Back to Index

 

 

 

 

In the matter of AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2, 89, 91, AND 93; GEOGRAPHIC REALLOCATION OF UHF-TV CHANNELS 14 THROUGH 20 TO THE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES FOR USE WITHIN THE 25 LARGEST URBANIZED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES; PETITION FILED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS TO PERMIT USE OF TV CHANNELS 14 AND 15

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.

 


 

CONCURBY: JOHNSON

 

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

 


Back to Top Back to Index