Washington report (January 13, 1965)

Volume VI Number 1

January 13, 1965

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BEFORE FCC ON COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION REGULATIONS

We have been studying the mass of comments and reply comments filed
in the Carter Mountain (CATV) rule-making proceeding. Naturally, the
major thrust of the pleadings has been concerned with economic impact (or
lack of it) upon commercial television operations. There have been a
number of other significant areas covered by the pleadings, however,
which may be of more direct interest to NAEB members. Here's a quick
run-through of some of them:

1. UHF: A recurrent theme has been the adverse impact of CATV upon
the development of UHF. Since the major development of ETV stations lies
in UHF, any activities which tend to frustrate that development are
properly our concern. National Community Television Association advances
statistics which show rather convincingly that as of the moment CATV has
not hurt UHF development. Thus, of 92 UHF commercial stations on the air,
22 have CATV service in the same community. In five of these communities,
the UHF station went on the air prior to CATV, and in 14 instances, the
CATV service existed before the station went on the air. Of 107 UHF
stations which have gone off the air, only 10 had CATV competition. These
figures as to present impact are questioned by some parties, notably
Springfield Television Broadcasting Corporation, which filed detailed
complaints concerning the adverse effect on its stations in western
Massachusetts. However, the gravamen of the charges by anti-CATV forces
is the potential effects on UHF in view of the rapid and continuing growth
of CATV. Where multiple signals can be brought to most communities,
investment in the hazards of UHF is discouraged. Nor do such parties find
solace in the claim of NCTA that CATV is a boon to UHF since it provides a
ready-built audience without the need for converters. The important asset
of UHF Licensee wants is his own home audience receiving service directly
through his own receiver.

2. Table of Allocations. A second major theme of the pleadings has
been the impact of CATV upon the Commission's television allocations
principles. The arguments follow patterns somewhat similar to those
advanced in the MPATI rule-making proceeding. Typical of the contentions
made is this excerpt from a pleading filed by Station WAAY-TV, Huntsville,
Alabama:

2

When the Commission adopted its Sixth Report and Order,
specific channels were allocated to specific communities.

No channel other than the one specified for a given community
could be applied for by an applicant. The Commission also
specified the maximum power that could be used on given channels.

Thus, the Commission recognized the normal area which a station
would serve and also established grades of service for such
areas and the normal extension of such grades of service. Like¬
wise, the Commission recognized the existence of certain cities
and areas which were separated by relatively short distances
and combined such areas into one area for purposes of allocation.

This system of allocation which is in existence today, fully
establishes the area which a given station is supposed to
serve. Competition was also created between stations in given
areas according to the size and population by the allocation
of more than one television station. No provision was made
for any station to utilize a gimmick and leap frog its signals
into the areas allocated to other stations, thus creating
undue and unfair competition. However, the present CATV
systems have provided the gimmick whereby such leap-frogging
may be accomplished. By further utilizing microwave relay
stations, this leap-frogging can now be extended over hundreds
of miles so that the very foundation on which the Commission's
present allocation policy rests is now threatened.

From a philosophical standpoint, too, there has been cause for complaint,
based on the fear that rapid growth of CATV will turn smaller cities into
cultural and economic suburbs of distant metropolitan centers. Moreover,
in view of the tendency of CATV operations to concentrate on city rather
than rural subscribers, it is conceivable that large areas of the country
may lose the opportunity to receive either commercial or educational tele¬
vision. As a result, the number of parties filing comments have suggested
that the Commission establish limits on the distance that a particular
station's signals may be carried via CATV. Others, and particularly
station KCOY-TV, Santa Maria, California, which is fighting a CATV proposal
to bring the seven Los Angeles signals into that community, have requested
that CATV be limited to carrying only the number of television signals
which would be available in a community in a full Table of Allocations
at maximum facilities.

3. FCC Regulation? A third major concern has been the extent of
FCC regulation. As shown in the attached release, the Commission has been
reluctant to assume full jurisdiction without specific legislation. Many
parties have argued to the FCC that it already has full power to regulate
CATV in its impact on television stations. ABC has filed a separate
petition for rule making (RM-672—comments were due on November 23, 1964,
and reply comments were due December 8, 1964) , seeking Commission reg¬
ulation of the carriage of television signals by CATV systems. A copy of
the ABC petition is enclosed. Just as vociferously, NCTA and CATV

3

operators argue that the FCC lacks jurisdiction not only in the respects
desired by ABC, but even in the limited areas which are the subject of
Commission rule making in its Carter Mountain docket, its TV-CATV docket,
and its CAR docket. There is considerable dispute in the pleadings as
to whether the protection against CATV duplication should extend to the
Grade B rather than the Grade A contour, whether more protection is
warranted for UHF stations than for VHF stations, and whether the pro¬
tection should be accorded to both simultaneous and non-simultaneous
duplication.

4 . Program Origination. Some concern has been voiced about program
originations and advertising practices by CATV operators. The Commission
in its TV-CATV docket is seeking information as to the exact extent of such
program origination, including commercial announcements. Such practices
amount, in effect, to pay-TV, a bug-a-boo for many commercial broadcasters
far worse than CATV. For educational broadcasters, such practices have
resulted in problems of commercial announcements inserted between educa¬
tional television offerings. Future problems may include program origination
by CATV operators of educational and cultural programs, over which educa¬
tors may have little control with respect to quality, timing, distribution,
etc. In a broader sense educational broadcasters must consider whether
their non-commercial educational offerings will still maintain that image

in the public mind if they are carried to large segments of the public by
means of a pay-TV or even paid-CATV vehicle. It might, for instance, be
difficult to secure regular ETV subscriptions from a viewer who is already
paying regular substantial sums for CATV.

5. TV Satellites. The Commission's proposed rules do not include
protection for TV satellite operations, defined as stations which do not
originate at least 7 hours per week of local programing. Many commercial
stations have opposed this limitation, on the theory that quite often
satellite stations which start out with no local program origination later
become independent local outlets. Satellite operation in the educational
field is likewise becoming somewhat more common, with newer stations

often-times relying heavily upon established ETV stations nearby. Multiple
assignments in the same general area may well contemplate early stages in
which the additional assignments are little more than satellite operations
for particular viewing areas or particular segments of the viewing popu¬
lation. As such, ETV interests may have an interest in the Commission's
proposals for satellites.

6. Translators. NCTA and the CATV operators argue that if strict
duplication rules are to apnly to CATV, similar limitations should be
imposed on translator operations. In a recent case (Wichita Television
Corporation, Inc., FCC 64-993, released October 29 , 1964) , the Commission
added a 15-day before and after duplication condition, which had been
voluntarily agreed to by a UHF translator applicant at Salina, Kansas.

4

The trade press reports that some Commissioners are in favor of a general
policy of conditioning translator grants in this manner. At the present
time. Section 74.732(e) of the Rules provides that VHF translator grants
will not be made to commercial television stations:

(1) Where the proposed translator is intended to provide
reception beyond the Grade B contour of the television
broadcast station proposed to be re-broadcast.

(2) Where the proposed VHF translator is intended to
provide reception to all or a part of any community located
within the Grade A contour of any other television broadcast
station for which a construction permit or license has been
granted and the programs rebroadcast by the proposed VHF
translator will duplicate all or any part of the programs
broadcast by such other television broadcast station or
stations; Provided, however, that this will not preclude
the authorization of a VHF translator intended to improve
reception of the parent station's signal to any community,
any part of the corporate limits of which is within the
principle city service contour of such station.

As a direct result of comments filed by interested educational groups,
this above provision of the rules does not apply to educational television
stations. In view of the active interest in applying more stringent
conditions upon translator operations, ETV interests should be vigilant
that additional amendments to the translator rules contain appropriate
exemptions for educational interests. This is of particular importance
because of the relatively large number of translators now operated by ETV
stations to provide better and wider coverage for their signals.

7. Property Rights. A viewpoint that is voiced strongly in the
comments, including active support by NBC and ABC, and active opposition
by NCTA, is that the Commission's proposed rules should contain explicit
recognition of property rights in television signals. While the Commission
has indicated that it does not propose to deal in these proceedings with
the question of whether there is a property right in broadcast signals
carried, some commenting parties have argued that the rules as proposed
appear to recognize rights of local stations to "require" carriage of its
signal, and "permit" CATV operators to carry outside signals in certain
instances. Because of this, parties such as ABC urge the Commission to
make it clear that any such authorization by the Commission is not intended
in ABC's words, to "derogate from any common-law or statutory rights,
including those of copyright and unfair competition, which any person,
including a Federal Communications Commission licensee, may have in
programs thus placed on a cable system." Parties such as NBC and station
KCOY-TV, Santa Maria, urge that CATV systems should, like translator
stations and regular television stations, be required to obtain the consent
of the originating station to rebroadcast its programs.

5

* * * *

We have attempted to provide some of the flavor of the arguments over
CATV. This is probably the most controversial subject now before the
Commission. Comments before the Commission (with the exception of NCTA's
claim of assistance to ETV stations and its inclusion, in its entirety,
of Loren Stone's article in the NAEB Journal * as Exhibit 1 of its Comments)
fail to treat in any depth the relationship of ETV to CATV.

It seems clear from developments to date that ETV probably should
not either oppose or support CATV in its entirety. The issue right now,
however, is the narrower one of whether and in what manner CATV should be
regulated by the FCC. ETV does have a stake in this matter. CATV is
carrying ETV signals. Undoubtedly, it is providing new audiences for ETV
and is thus assisting the development of ETV. However, just as ETV could
not forever depend on private arrangements with commercial television
stations to meet its needs, so ETV cannot depend forever on private
arrangements with CATV operators as a substitute for direct ETV service.

In fact, the problem is more acute insofar as CATV operators are concerned,
since commercial television stations are subject to regulation, and hence
must generally abide by programing representations made, whereas CATV
operators for the most part are subject to no regulation whatsoever.

If CATV is to play an important role in the development of ETV, then
it may well be that ETV interests would be well advised to support at
least minimal regulation of CATV by the Commission, if only to provide
some further assurance that arrangements now gratuitously proffered by
CATV operators to ETV stations will not be abruptly modified or discarded
at the whim of the CATV operator. In addition, as experience grows with
CATV, and its impact, both beneficial and adverse, on ETV is more fully
documented, there may be additional reasons why ETV should take a stronger
stand, pro or con, on this touchy issue.

♦Stone, Loren, "Community Antenna Television: Its Role in ETV,
Journal, March-April, 1964, 23:2, p. 46.

NAEB

National Association of Educational Broadcasters

1340 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
WASHINGTON 36. D. C.

WILLIAM G. HARLEY
PRESIDENT

January 13, 1965

TO NAEB INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS

In revising our over-all publications program, the deter¬
mination was made to turn over to the Divisions the respon¬
sibility for reprinting news of the latest developments in
Washington affecting the various areas of educational broad¬
casting. Hereafter the Washington Report will be devoted
to w in-depth M reports of general interest to the membership.

On the important issue of community antenna television
regulation, we are pleased to inaugurate our new Washington
Report with a paper by the NAEB General Counsel, Norman
Jorgensen.

Mr. Jorgensen's paper is based on a study of the comments
that parties have made before the Federal Communications
Commission and concludes with some general recommendations
particularly oriented toward educational television stations.

The development of wired systems that serve as adjuncts to
broadcast facilities is already a part of the service pro¬
vided to the public. While it has been related to educational
television, there are no technical reasons why educational
radio stations could not be included. Although such
possibilities may appear remote at this time, we are including
members of NER in this mailing so that all of the NAEB
Institutional Division will be informed of current status
of comments before the Commission.

On December 9, a meeting between NAEB/ETS officials and the
educational television committee of the National Community
Television Association established the need for close contact
between the two groups in order to minimize conflicting
positions. We shall undoubtedly be sending you further
reports.

-W.G. Harley

Scanned from the National Association of Educational Broadcasters Records
at the Wisconsin Historical Society as part of
"Unlocking the Airwaves: Revitalizing an Early Public and Educational Radio Collection."

'oiTu> c KTwe
\\KWAVEs

A collaboration among the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities,
University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Communication Arts,
and Wisconsin Historical Society.

Supported by a Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant from
the National Endowment for the Humanities

I I T I—I MARYLAND INSTITUTE for

I TECHNOLOGY in the HUMANITIES

UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND

WISCONSIN

HISTORICAL

SOCIETY

WISCONSIN

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE

Humanities

views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication/collection do not necessarily reflect those of the

National Endowment for the Humanities.