thumbnail of 
     National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational
    Broadcasting and ETV Facilities Act Part One
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
Educational broadcasting DTV facilities act meetings. So if you're in the wrong spot now's the time to move in don't be embarrassed about the benefit the TV facilities act or public law 87 dash 4 4 7. Or that which is expanding our field and educational television broadcasting at a very rapid rate. In 1962 the federal government in its wisdom saw fit to pass a bill which would provide federal assistance in the form of matching funds for Educational Television broadcasting facilities and we want to keep the Safa Noons meeting and particularly the questions as they follow directly related to broadcasting questions and not get off onto some of the problems of instructional television closed circuit television etc.. We'll stick with broadcasting since this is what these men are here for and what they are involved in. 1963 and for
the United States Congress in its wisdom appropriated 8 million dollars total to one of the six may have ration I guess. To get this ball rolling and get applications in and following the meeting in 63 applications began moving in to the office. And as most of you probably know either by rumor a direct line or something. Last Friday I think we got another act of wisdom from our Congress which involves I believe some 13 million express effects of this data. You will hear shortly because we have the people. Who are the holders of the purse the interpreters of the act in a sense and those with whom we deal as our representatives in the United States government working with us. A recorder for the session is Dr. Wayne Hill. The end of the first row if there's anything at any time that you want to get out of his notes and he keeps
very accurate Dr. Hill from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee check with him after the meeting if there's something that you have missed. The gentleman at the table. Or connected with the. Educational TV facilities act portion of the U.S. Office of Education. Their names are in front of them. Their names are on the program and rather than prolonging that let me introduce the first speaker who will in turn introduce the rest of these people since he works with them so directly. Ray Stanley is formerly one of us I don't know why I should categorize him in a way he is still one of us but having worked very directly educational television broadcasting at the University of Wisconsin and the Ohio State University. Ray is director of the ATV facilities act US officer of education race.
Thank you Larry. We won't waste any time on the process of becoming of course you regret the educational television facilities program has frequently referred to women agricultural context as a seed money program. Binocular perhaps you will tolerate a story which may have some bearing on what we propose to do this afternoon. This is to suggest that we may be somewhat like a little four year old boy who visited his grandparents on the farm on a warm spring morning was allowed to ride the tractor with grandpa while grandpa did some plowing and when they returned to the farmhouse for lunch in order to attempt to ascertain if the four year old had an inkling of what was going on Graham asked him. And what are you and grandpa doing in the fields. Johnny and Johnny replied Well I don't know if we're taking the dirt out or putting it in but we're sure making it wider.
So at this point in time we may not be able to assess fully the TV facilities program in terms of yield per acre. We can report on such things as the condition of the soil the width of the furrows and the general climate in which we are updating. Now the words we propose today to make progress and status report to reflect some of the problems we each which we encounter which may be helpful to those of you who may have applications in preparation and to comment on several matters which go beyond the initial approval of an AGW grant under this program. And I echo what Lee said in his introduction that we like very much for this to be a much involves session and we will simply get on some high spots if we don't cover ground that is of particular interest to you. I hope there'll be ample time in the discussion period for you to bring them
up. Let me identify a little more fully than the placards to the seven persons who will share in this presentation on the far on my far right. William Smith and we are. 40 TV program specialists on the office of education staff between them Bill and Sandy do most of the initial processing of applications leading toward a recommendation. And John Hurley who is deputy assistant for educational TV in the office of the under secretary of the Department of Health Education and Welfare. Mr. Hurley's name doesn't appear in your printed schedule because the decision to include him was made too late to meet the printer's deadline. There are two reasons for sharing this presentation among several people. The first is strictly a production device. We have a lot of ground cover which includes a certain amount of complexity and so you
can look forward at least to a change of face and voice. The other reason is that each of these officers will be available throughout the convention for consultation with prospective applicants with applicants who have materials filed with us with grantees whose projects are in progress and for whatever other purpose may be served by their presence. Besides relieving the monotony of the presentation will give you an a chance to identify them and to. Make note of their presence and their identity so that if you have questions and wish to confer with them you may do so later. First of all a status report reflecting progress in the ETP program to take and we've asked Bill Smith to make that report. Excuse me a moment before Bill starts Could I ask you people here to please rise in the first three rows and move as part of this site if we could just really present the status
report because status represents progress in our program progress represents money and everybody is always interested in money. Congress placed the responsibility for grant approval ministrations direction of the educational television facilities program with the secretary of Health Education and Welfare. Who in turn delegated the responsibility for Grant processing and recommendation to the commissioner of education. Internal routing recommendations and reports means that there is generally a time lapse of varying duration. Between the recommendation and the awarding of a grant. Therefore the figures I'm about to repeat relate to recommendations made the total number of grants actually only 40. As of this very moment may differ by one or two from the number of
recommendations made. At this point I plan to have some visuals for you but I had quite a bit of trouble I got the necessary for required signatures on the 13 pieces of paper and I was privileged to talk with the director or inform me that we would have to go out and bid for six Bucharest and he probably wouldn't be ready until May so I don't have any. As of last Friday. The office had received and accepted for filing. 81 we have locations representing a total of the project cost of twenty six point seven million dollars. And a federal matching request of fifteen point six million dollars of the 81 accepted applications. 44 grants have been recommended. Amounting to a total of seven point eight million.
In federal funds out of the total thirty two million dollars allocated by Congress in 1962. Twenty two of these 44. Were proposals to activate new channels or total of four million two hundred sixty six thousand dollars in federal matching grants. The remaining 22 were proposals to expand existing 8 TV stations. Or a total of three million five hundred seventy six thousand dollars. Now let's move on talk for a moment about those applications which have also been accepted for filing. But are still awaiting completion of processing. Twenty one of these are to activate new stations requesting a total of four million eight hundred forty three thousand dollars. And an 16 1/2 locations for expansions amounting to two million seven hundred thirty seven thousand
dollars. We have therefore 37 pending applications on file requesting seven million five hundred eighty thousand dollars in federal matching funds. Now I should point out however that a little more than 50 percent of these filers are temporarily dormant for a variety of reasons. The most common of which is a familiar yet haunting phrase insufficient funds. Until these various problem areas are cleared up little or no progress can be made. This leaves 18 applications which are currently under active processing by our ATV staff. They act sets for a basic criteria to be used in the evaluation of project completions. Part of this criteria refers to an equitable geographic distribution of facilities throughout the United States and service to the
greatest number of persons in as many areas as possible. The northeast section of the country has experienced the greatest activity they've had 10 activations 11 expansions requesting 3.9 million doctors. About half of our total number of recommendations occurred in this section. In the southeast. We have recommended five applications. Three expansions for one point four million dollars. In the southwest section. In heavy populated areas around Los Angeles San Francisco Salt Lake City we have recommended activations for expansions for a total of 1.4 million dollars. Again the totals for the northwest section of the country reflect three activations for expansions. Or total of one point four million dollars.
The most active PTT state in the northwest section of the country is Washington. So I hope this gets a pretty good account of our total grant distribution today. Now one final point for my section. You may have already you are already aware that we have received our fiscal year 65 appropriation of 13 million dollars our total appropriation to date including the 8 million appropriated to f y 64. It goes twenty one million dollars. As I mentioned previously the total requested so far. In all applications are granted and pending. To approximately fifteen thousand fifteen million. Fifteen point six million dollars. This means that we can continue to receive applications for a total of approximately five million dollars in federal funds for the total request it reaches the limits of our operations. Therefore we would like to see more applications.
Thank you. And let me reiterate with emphasis one of those points that is that approximately 50 percent of the applications are in effect until we receive further information which will make the application more complete in compliance with the regulations. There's little we can do about moving them toward the stage of recommendation. Which brings us kind of naturally toward to a consideration of problems which we encounter in the processing of application along with the rest of us Sandy wheeler. But as time has acquired a certain amount of experience in troubleshooting problem areas. So we've asked Sandy to comment on the general scene processing problems. Back in May of this year Ray Stanley outlined some of the problem areas with the regular meeting of the Institute for Education by radio television. Unfortunately we are
still living with many of these problems and applications can continue to come in. Deficient in several crucial areas. Specifically our major concern. And the point that will delay processing the most is assurances or rather the lack of them. Under this program the federal government has an interest in the Project for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of the project. To protect this interest. Regulations require that certain assurances must be provided prior to the grant. Basically the most troublesome assurances come under too general heading for sites and finances. One of the side assurance we must have evidence that the applicant has access to the property which is transmitter is to be located that he has the right to remove his equipment during the 10 year period and that the applicant will be permitted to transmit from the site for the total period of federal interest.
Obviously if you own the property on which the tower and transmitter are to be located then all of the aforementioned points are automatically satisfied. However if you lease the property or space on a tower. As has been the case many times. Then all of the points must be incorporated into the lease. I might add that a copy of any lease arrangement involving tower and or transmitter must be submitted along with your application for proper legal review. In summary then you should demonstrate that you have a site for 10 years legal access to that site and the right to remove the equipment from the site should it become necessary to do so. But actual assurances. Our biggest headache. The name of the game is still. We match you not you match us. Our regulations are very insistent on this particular point. You must show that the necessary funds to match
the federal share will be on hand at the time of Grant. You must also demonstrate that bones will be available for operations for a period of 12 months following the completion of the project. In all cases involving operational financial assurances necessary documentation must be submitted to support all amounts indicated. In other words if operating funds are not actually on hand but are anticipated then we must have documentation of the contracts or other commitments of future revenue to back up the anticipated amount given. In the case of stations already in operation the strongest case we can make in our recommendation to the secretary is an adequate history of sound business management and financial support. This shows an interest on the part of the community or administration involved and indicates a continuing and ongoing support for the future. In the case of a community top type
operation this would mean supplying our office with a current balance sheet and a brief two or three year history of your from actual operation. In other words income and expenditures. Many of the assurances we now require have developed from experience and consequently may not be found in our current application form or other as we call it now the old application form. However a new form will soon be off the presses. In quantity. We have brought some of them with us a limited amount they just finished at the end of last week. For those of you that feel that you have applications pending immediately be glad to give you these. For those of you that anticipate applications in two or three months if you fill out one of the forms on the table down in the demonstration area send it in to us or they will pick it up there. We'll be glad to forward all the necessary information to you. For those of you planning to submit an application soon the N.A. be in cooperation with
our office has prepared to fictitious sample applications. One is for an activation and the other is for an expansion project. I would commend to you the sample application which applies to your particular situation. In it you will find samples of all of the assurance assurances required together with the general idea of how the various exhibits documents and assurances should be put together. The sample sample applications are available on a loan basis through the educational television stations division of the NAACP. In addition the ETF the staff is always available for consultation in the preparation of an application. And as always available to review the applications rough draft. As you are preparing. The greatest amount of processing time saved has always been in direct
relation to the relatively small amount of time expended by the applicant. With us prior to the filing of his application the frank discussion of mutual problem areas and consultation in general prior to filing in no way prejudices the application. Quite the contrary at allit eliminates countless phone calls trips and letters not to mention needless time consuming legal reviews and helps to revive our office with an application that can be processed swiftly and smoothly through the home processing procedure. Two other areas of the application also come into play. Aside from providing the necessary legal and financial assurances required an applicant will materially speed his application through the grant recommendation. If he supplies complete information within the engineering and programming sections of the application form for an obviously engineering information must be
complete. And most important reflect in substantial degree the information submitted to the FCC. This is not always been the case in the past. Of those of you claiming a quick look for credit necessary documentation must be on file at your own office to show how you arrived at fair market value. In other words invoices recognize appraisals etc. as do not necessarily have to be included with the application but they should be on record. A matter of record at your office. The programming section or Exhibit 4 of the application provides a few problems to us also from time to time. Basically the section tells us two things. How you determine your specific needs and how you intend to meet those needs. We usually get a statement on Question 1 but not always one question to each exhibit will of course vary from applicant to applicant. However it should be complete and statements again should be documented.
In other words if you have determined that an increase in power will bring say 10000 new students to your school service than we would like to have an indication if possible that school officials in the new area are aware that the service is to be available and that they intend to use the service provided. All of this is simply by way of giving us the strongest application possible with the necessary documents to back it up. Finally a word about contingent grants. Some applicants lacking necessary financial and or sight assurance have requested contingent or conditional grants. In other words we approve the project but give no money until the necessary assurances are provided. Let me say that we discourage this technique. First of all a conditional Grant is no substitute for an assured piper must be paid. Secondly it only means they complete reprocessing procedure when
assurances are provided and the condition is lifted. This only serves to delay you and to delay others waiting in line. To be sure. We have made exceptions to this room but only where a conditional Grant will materially aid the applicant in providing lead time or in fulfilling other broadcast commitments. Experience has shown that by and large conditional grants have limited value to the applicant and in the long run indeed may cause additional problems concerning audit and final payment procedures at a later date. Thank you. Let me stress again about the sample application. Tell a story and our Chief Engineer John Berger who is in here. At the time the sample application for an expansion project was
completed in a copy delivered to us. John was only vaguely aware that this was going on in the background got his hands on it and he saw it glanced through it and immediately wanted to accept a sample application for filing. You'll notice the new application. Forms but has the forms with the yellow cover thrown out they're virtually obsolete. You'll find that there aren't too many changes and I know there are one or two of you who have an application in a fairly advanced state. Compare it with this forum you may find that you can take some pages or sections from the yellow covered form and put them into the green cover form. Do not confuse it with the blue cover letter as a request for final beam and by all means do not file the blue cover form requesting final payment before you file the green door.
Then the light green cover is for the Associate Commissioner and the red cover is for the commissioner and we have a beautiful two tone design color in pale gray and beige but we haven't got a form to put it on yet. Well Bill and Sandy have been talking about is ground. We've been over before and if their discussion reflects that we've made some progress under the program. It also suggests that we can make considerably better progress to the extent that applications are completely and thoroughly developed at the time they are submitted. I'd like now to change the subject somewhat to go beyond those factors which have a bearing on the approval of the grant to consider several questions in connection with the completion of the project and the first of these is when is a project complete. To question which arises of course principally in connection with final payment. The answer is a project is complete
when all of the apparatus listed in the application as a proof has been acquired installed and is operational. And if that belabors the obvious I apologize and we leave any further discussion of it to the discussion which follows this presentation. The only reason for bringing it up at this time is that the question does arise in connection with final payment and to point out that there may be a difference especially with those of you who may experience delays in delivery of the apparatus that sort of thing. There may be a difference between the date that you begin a broadcast service or an expanded broadcast service on the one hand and the date that your project is actually complete. The other question which arises often enough to warrant some discussion of it is related to the flexibility that a grantee may have in acquiring apparatus after his project has been approved as a grantee required to purchase only
that apparatus which is specifically identified in exhibit 6 of the approved application. Assume your project is approved your grant has been awarded. Now you have to stick strictly to the apparatus you originally listed on exhibit 6 of the application or can you make substitutions deletions or additions. Before trying to come to grips with the answer to that question let me define that word substitutions in this context. Deletions and additions I take it would be obvious a substitution however is a word susceptible to several meanings and it should be understood that we are not talking about apparatus which has been approved by type in your application and which otherwise involves substitution only to the extent that you're going to acquire one brand of. Equipment for the brand which you may have exemplified in your application. We are talking about items of apparatus which were not included in the application is
approved or which are substantially greater or lesser. In performance characteristics and performance capability than the apparatus which was approved. In other words to cite just one example. We are not talking about the substitution let's say of two RCA image an image or the comm cameras for the two image or the con cameras which you had listed by type. In the application or vice versa. We are talking about a substitution of that account cameras for the image or think on cameras. But what approaches are by sources we are talking about the addition of a third camera. If your application was approved for two campuses. There are two dominant considerations that relate to the question of substitution deletion or addition. On the one hand we must operate under certain limitations which are prescribed by the act and by regulations the approval of the
project is given on the basis of community educational needs as you described them in the application. Another way of saying that is that project approval means that the grantee cannot proceed to acquire. The television apparatus which he had described in exhibit 6. On the other hand we recognize that under certain circumstances which are consistent with the needs described in your application it may become necessary to make a change in your list of apparatus. Between the time the project is approved and the time it is completed. For example your operational requirements may have changed in a way that requires the substitution of one kind of apparatus but not. For another example. Technological progress is swift in the development or redesign of TV equipment apparatus may be available now. Which was not in production at the time your application was approved. A piece of apparatus described by you one way through redesign may now be a quite
different piece of apparatus. Let me stress that these are only examples to mention that as illustrations. Of reasons that a change may be necessary doesn't mean that we will automatically approve the modification merely because such a reason seems to exist. A third circumstance which may occur. But which again is not necessarily a reason for a modification is an increase in the effectiveness of the grantees matching funds. That is the effect of disk ops or low bids may result in a final total project cost which is substantially lower than the original estimated project cost. Normally we will expect that reductions in total project cost through ads or discounts will be reflected in the final amount of the federal grant because with the limitations that are built into the legislation the accumulation of funds which can be
saved in that manner will be useful later in assisting other construction projects. But circumstances will vary from one project to another and so it is not possible to develop rules which will be universally applicable. If the question of substitution deletion or addition arises in any given project we will need to consider each case on its own merits. And so if such a question should arise in connection with your project you should request a proof of this substitution deletion or addition in writing before you become committed to the ownership of such apparatus. Such a request should be addressed to the director. The TV facilities programme in the office of education. In other words write me a letter I don't get enough mail. Oh no we can't determine in advance which modification might be approved and which might not. We can lay down certain guidelines which will govern our consideration of such a request whenever it becomes
necessary to do so. The first of these is this. Under no circumstances may the federal grant exceed the amount originally authorized. Second we will not automatically approve or request a modification merely because of an increase in the effectiveness of the applicants matching funds. If the needs of the project as described in the application are met and the total final cost is lower than the original estimate because of discounts or no bids. The federal government expects to participate in such shapes. Given those two conditions then the request to delete and or substitute. Will be related to the needs that were approved in the project application and a recommendation to approve such a request will depend on the necessity for the apparatus in relation to those names. Internal procedures for processing
such requests are being developed at the present time and eventually be published in the program but for our purposes this afternoon I think it is necessary only to stress this point. If you have received approval for a project and be awarded a grape and discover after approval that a substantial change is necessary in the list of apparatus as approved request approval of the proposed change in writing before you own or become obligated to the apparatus in question. And although this too may be obvious for any of you who have an education in preparation. There are a lot of problems in this area that can be avoided by making a thorough and precise evaluation of your needs at the time you prepare the application not later. The technique of amendment of course is always open to it. We can amend the project
any number of times. This may be necessary. Clear up to the time of grant approval it is after the secretary has given his approval that we may have some problems and that this other technique of requesting approval of additions deletions or substitutions will become necessary. Now if you have any questions on this point of points previously covered I will try to answer them during the discussion period at the end of the session. As I'm sure most of you are aware. The administration of this program is set up in two parts two divisions processing and administrative matters in connection with processing are taken care of in the office of education policy determinations are made in the office of the secretary and I would like to turn to the last member of our panel for some comments on matters of general policy which will be of interest to you. As I indicated earlier we got him to join our team a little too late to include his name in the printed
program. Nevertheless we're happy to have him with us. And it's a pleasure to present to you the deputy assistant to the undersecretary for education of television John Hurt. I joined the team that late that some of my material has already been covered. This is what we always find. I would like to review the history of the appropriations and of the educational television facilities act. I realize Mr Dr Dreyfus and Mr Smith about already covered it briefly but I think it's important again to review it. If you'll recall we received our first appropriation in May of 1963 one and a half million in October of that same year. We received a regular appropriation of six point five million and just recently the Congress authorized Thirteen million for fiscal
1965 making a total appropriated of 21 million out of an authorized 32 million. This would appear to indicate that those of you who might be planning to submit applications. Might consider doing it rather soon. I'd also like to take a couple of moments and discuss the existing state temporary maximum limitations. You will probably recall it when the Act was passed we were authorized 32 million but when the program got under way and in order to give each of the States an opportunity to get their plans solidified and start preparing applications a temporary maximum when the patient was established for each of the states. The program has progressed to a point now where this temporary limitation has worked a hardship
in at least two of the states. We are getting very full consideration to making an announcement probably in a program bulletin in December referring to the suspension of these temporary limitations. The announcement conceivably might be made in December to be effective within the first quarter of calendar 65. A question that sometimes is often asked and it's very applicable this year in that some 34 state legislatures will convene in 1965. Would an applicant have to have. His state appropriation in hand before filing an application. And the answer is not. To give one specific example. We have had accepted for filing for Project applications from the state of Vermont.
The amount legislature will not meet until January. Hopefully their state will appropriate the necessary matching funds. We know of at least two more states whose legislatures will meet in January. Who are planning to file applications prior to that time. Now the advantage of this is that it gives Ray and his group. An opportunity to review the applications possibly accepted for filing and notify the applicant family. We're not. In the federal government trying to exert pressure on individual state legislatures but I would assume that if an applicant dependent on an upcoming appropriation request can go to his legislature and say that. My application has been accepted by the federal government this might have a very salutary effect. One of the basic question that we asked particularly at this point in time.
Is will the program be extended. As you know it was set up originally as a five year program. And all I can say at this point is that we at the department. Have no indication that any steps have been taken to date to amend the existing legislation and extend the program. That's not to say that it might not be done. But as of now we just don't know. So again this would appear to indicate you have heard the statistics on the number of applications and the amount of federal requests. I just do not think that you can go on the assumption that any more than the 32 counties will be authorized by Congress. Some of you I know are connected with state TV agencies. And have recently been in receipt of a request from us for information on your developing plans. And I say that we always appreciate your cooperation
in forwarding this information to us. As Ray had said previously he and Mr. Smith Mr. Wheeler myself and John by storm will be here throughout the convention. And we will be very interested in talking to any of you who have developing plans within your state. Thank you. Just one small modification I think you may not have been aware of this. Somebody's got to go home and can the store. So I will be here only through today but all four of the others will be here so please take advantage of their availability. And I certainly am available to until I have to leave to get you 957 plane by a Trans Texas tomorrow. Wish me luck. Lee I think that's it kind of thank you. We have approximately 25 to 30 minutes for specific questions. We can entertain at this time. Let me start off with one here and then
I'll give you a chance think of some of your own in terms of credit. Who has to specifically own the equipment being used as a credit. Let me give an example in the case where state agencies are being created or commissions or whatever they're called and part of that agency is a state university which has already invested in broadcast equipment. But the commission which applies as licensee is not a governing body that is to put the answer to the question is that the applicant. Must. Be apparatus that is claimed for credit not anybody has it. For instance I think we might go beyond that. The question arises and becomes confusing. In the case of a joint application we have had an example or two of a joint application is between an individual school and a state TV agency. Let's say if the apparatus is owned jointly which it generally is it is eligible for credit.
If the apparatus is not jointly then it can't be accepted for credit. In most cases the resolution comes at the applicant's level that is to say by simply coming in as a single applicant and claiming the apparatus for credit. But the thing that is awkward to do you see is to claim credit for the apparatus that is on both by a university which has been operating close circuit let's say on the one and state he commission on the other. When the question gets a little more complicated it is considered that the university and the state commission are children of some other state agency then a different complication arises. But let me reiterate the answer and then try to answer any specific questions if there are any. That in order to be eligible for credit. The. Apparatus that is claimed for credit must be owned by the applicant. If it's joint then the
ownership must be cooked. Now let me be great what you want me to get angry. You want to talk I want to know what you think you can. For everything the. Funds that are so reserved from reverting and in some cases in which we pick an application up out of its priority and so that that would not take place in at least one case that I can think of it wasn't possible to do so because the situation was out of our control it was an FCC action involved and in that particular case the applicant
merely got an extension of time and the availability of the funds. But by and large you certainly have to let us know that the funds will revert and if that's the case and we can possibly do so I will try to get action on it before those loans would revert. Think our. Bread is at Carbondale. No problem.
The other operation is owned by the same U.S. It is another operation. If I understand what you're giving me or your circumstances the board of trustees the apparatus at Carbondale and are applying for the station at all. There is no problem they may claim that credit and this station which as I take it a reserved channel. Which of course is an activation. It gets a little technical I mean. The feet thing well me thinks. I know those of us who are familiar. With TV operation do realize that there is a gray area between the black of an activation on the one and the white of an expansion on the other. That is where
the creation of a new station activation of a new channel has a satellite operation in fact is nothing more or less than the expansion of the signal but under the legislation the primary thrust of which is to get new channels you reserve channels activated. The thing you describe would be an activation and not an expansion. Your secret is really pretty.
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and ETV Facilities Act Part One
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-bg2hbz59).
No description available
Public Affairs
Media type
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 4321 (University of Maryland)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “ National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and ETV Facilities Act Part One ,” 1964-10-26, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 21, 2024,
MLA: “ National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and ETV Facilities Act Part One .” 1964-10-26. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 21, 2024. <>.
APA: National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and ETV Facilities Act Part One . Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from