thumbnail of 
     National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational
    Broadcasting and the FCC, National Association of Educational Broadcasters
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
You know it's important when you have to make that modification to satisfy AGW that you also modify Menger application before the commission. Because in our contact with these people we suddenly find out that the basis the court for matching funds US has expanded considerably and we don't know why. We're aware that this may be an additional piece of gear which has not been approved by this commission. We are attempting to cure this in a because the people at AGW Ray Stanley and his office are attempting to explain to most Americans before that agency that where they are advised to change gear they are to advise this commission to follow and then to their applications so that where we're getting to the point now where we're working pretty well coordinating. When an application has been fully processed by our by the commission we find that you're fully qualified except with respect to your financial situation at that point.
We write a memorandum from the chief of the bureau to the AGW people telling them that we have processed the application. We find the parties fully qualified in all respects except in respect of financial qualifications but that if AGW make funds available to them in the amount specified we can then issue the construction permit. When this happens AGW then makes a no nonsense of the war. We do not act and then also this award comes out we take action only when the AGW people issue and obligating document and can bring specific monies for the particular application at that point I can then sign the application and issue the construction permit. We are currently have before some 40 applications for new education television facilities. Some 95 stations are now on the air
or some 22 standing authorizations has not been built yet. I think we're moving pretty well and we have some backlog situation in this area but only because in those instances the various states. When I get ready to go because of money problems in most cases. In terms of legal qualifications we have very little in the way of problems. The only problem even in two recent recent times of the situation where a county which has a separate independent educational or authority decides that it wants to file under our rules. They are not eligible where there is an independent education authority. What we've done in those cases is work out a situation where the county will file but on behalf of the educational authority we've had a situation where we
had to dismiss an application filed by a purely one of the municipal portions of the government such as the fire department Los Angeles we've had to reject their applications because of the rather limited application of broad general educational usage. We were expecting some potential problem areas in terms of site selection and air space considerations now where we run into a problem with the Federal Aviation Agency in terms of hazard to air and avocation. You must understand that there's very little of this commission can do but except to give you a hearing. Quite often the FAA has its own problems and secularizing a proposal by the various member agencies and when they finally get around to really report to this commission they may find that a particular site proposal constitutes a hazard to air and have a Geisha when this happens. We will generally wait to see whether or not the problem can be resolved whether the educator can find an alternate site and should that that be
possible in the educators assist Of course they will be accorded a hearing which they can try the question of whether or not a particular site constitutes a hazard to navigation. Up to now we've had no particular problem in this area. The next area where we expect an awful lot of applications if the room was right the first instructional service. At the present time we've granted 11 such applications. Our data are still scarce and it's too early to tell just exactly what impact this will have we have high hopes for the situation but there are many problems which which will undoubtedly arise and which will have to be solved. I understand that in New York are seeing connections with the manufacturers of units MC is conducting in Brooklyn a series of quantitative qualitative tests to determine optimum distances for these structural fixed stations and what problems they may run into.
The results are not in yet so tentatively I've understood that up to this release to fix the structural stations will be something like 15 to 20 miles in the big cities like New York and Los Angeles and Chicago because of line of sight problem so some of the systems we have to be worked out your effective range may be limited. I'm sorry. Your effective range may be somewhat limited. As I say information is not in yet and it will be some. As I say today we've got a similar one applications. Evidently the Catholic groups are the first to really go into this thing in a very on a large scale. The average installation in New York Baltimore proposed from Miami has been in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. The Archdiocese of New
York is going to propose situation for three hundred ninety two schools six transmitter sites for a total cost of four hundred eighty eight thousand dollars. Baltimore with a single site transmitter seven hundred twenty receiving sites an approximate amount of three hundred ninety three thousand dollars. And I have a million dollar installation for the proposed Miami Archdiocese. We're running into the problem that as many of these areas get further rather quickly it's going to be a problem of additional channels being made available. And in this connection. Mr. Park and the other engineers of the commission of indicated that we've got to pay a lot more attention to a much more sophisticated engineering techniques and much more careful selection of the site. Keeping in mind the fact that other people may want to come in and
utilize this particular service. And it's in this connection that we've kicked around the idea here that perhaps what is needed is something somewhat simple comparable to the situation we have and safety special services or some sort of an industry clearing committee so that when an application is proposed to be filed it gets clear to industry they look it over and give interested parties a chance to combine say well this will impact and I hope to take it a proposal so that perhaps you can avoid an awful lot of litigation and problems in the future. As I say I want to they are Commission the Commission's rules in this area you're supposed to so locate your sites that you will not use up too much space and too many charities. The classical example the situation where you have a transmitter site and all your receiving sites are directly in front of you. The use of an omni directional antenna is not particularly useful in this case it's rather wasteful.
It's conceivable that you could have a backup situation here from two sites. People could be broadcasting to two different areas to two separate school districts and gets get a much more efficient utilization of space. But these are the areas where the industry itself can do an awful lot to prevent a lot of falling out of the situation running into notable litigation delay and the scarcity of the valuable channels. I think this is about all I really have to have said for the good of the questions will be glad to answer. Riv Thank you Sam. Larry and I found out and was able to find out the elite of the commission staff usually is composed of either engineers or lawyers. But once in a while a Harvard economist with a Ph.D. comes along who by sheer the like of personality and brilliance of intellect manages to become assistant chief of the broadcast bureau.
I now present such a man Dr. Hyman H that he of us all would. Thank you Keith. I must say that our Nielsen rating for today is much better than I had expected when I had learned that we were going to face the competition of our friends from 80 W.. I was terrified because they administer the National Defense Education Act and the television facilities act and I couldn't think of any more effective audience builders and that I'm very happy that so many of you have chosen to come here and have chosen to stay here despite the communications problem that we're having here today. I'm only going to take a few minutes because I think as Max said the most important thing is for us to answer questions. And when I say a few minutes I mean that literally this spring I
retain Asia and I'm going across the country to Salt Lake City to speak before one of his groups. And after that I think I was through before the introductions are completed I think this was the shortest speech on record. I do want to touch briefly on something that Max has been talking about namely the UHF allocation plan which I still think is one of the most important for a long term future of educational broadcasting. There are some differences between our approach and the national and big. I think we've learned a great deal as a result of their computer tests and I think this has pointed the way to our own use of the computer. The differences however are perhaps less substantial than the similarities we differ in terms of whether they should be more than two assignments in the largest cities. We differ as to whether all the educational assignments should be the lower part of the UHF band.
We may differ also with respect to how many of the smaller cities shall receive grants. But I think the important thing and I think the point that I want to emphasize today is that under our plan or under the plan which eventually comes out the important thing is that there will be enough facilities for a large scale nationwide expansion of educational television and I think this is the critical point. But before either of our work goes much farther. We must resolve the question of what to do about the airborne television proposal as many of you know on October 9th the Commission sat and listened to the proponents and opponents of the Midwest airborne program for instructional TV big. There was considerable discussion in that proceeding as to what impact the Midwest program would have whether it should be limited to only two of the six
states centering in Indiana whether it should be nationwide whether the channels that should be used should be in the lower portion of the broadcast portion of the UHF or as we have proposed into the twenty five hundred mega cycles and was interesting in that proceeding that there was so much support for impact from the local educational groups the people who have enjoyed the experience of subscribing to the Impact Experiment. And I think that this year at quite an impression on the Commission despite the fact that almost all of the national groups the NEA the and the various educational organizations came out in opposition to him parity fact remains that the local people came and told the commission that this was a worthwhile service provided multiple channels that it was high grade programming and they knew of no other way to get the service as inexpensively.
And I don't know where the commission will finally go on this one it is a tough problem. But I do think it points up several very important aspects for the future of educational broadcasting. I think it points out perhaps most important the need for coordination the need for or program development and experimentation. The need for funneling the resources into programs rather than into hardware imperiling was fortunate. They have a very important sponsor so that they were able to spend substantial sums both for programming and for hardware. This choice was not available to most of us but I feel that this is a problem that is perhaps the most significant for the future of educational broadcasting namely. How would you use your money most effectively.
I have been a strong advocate as anyone for multiplying the TV stations to encourage diversity and local control. But I'm beginning to see that this approach has some shortcomings. We now have almost a hundred TV stations on the year and I'm not as sure as I was a few years back that the TV movement would be as well off if it had 200 stations on the year. The problem is that with limited resources it is easier to tap these resources for hardware's rather than for program experimentation. Money is available for AGW for stations and it is tempting to put more stations on the air and to hope that somehow the programs will be available from any TV or from regional libraries or from local teachers. In the long run this is the point that will have to be resolved by the educational group itself the commission is
not going to be in the position of regulating your program fair. But in our role as fosters educational broadcasting I think it's important for us to point out what we see as the national trend and we feel at this point that much more thought has to be given much more planning has to be given to providing a much deeper a much richer program fair than merely to multiply the number of stations. I would rather see one TV station in an area spending two or three hundred thousand dollars on programming than having two or three stations inadequately financed. It's interesting also that the chairman of the FCC chairman Henry was so concerned about this problem of financing of the program monies available for programming that he took the occasion at the annual meeting of the
International Radio and Television Society of which the most important commercial broadcasters gather to speak almost exclusively on the need to provide additional funds for educational broadcasting. I want to quote only one paragraph. He said The truth is that educational television has accomplished wonders with the resources at its command. But the time has come to say that it will never realize its full potential until its financial base rises to a radically new level. While that level does not have to be anywhere near the plush plateau inhabited by commercial television it must provide support for good programming on a realistic basis. That educational television should permanently struggle for subsistence is intolerable and I raise the question with you whether you are not multiplying your problems when within a day
when a given area or a metropolitan region you start having two or three stations where perhaps one well-financed well-organized station might do the same job. In this connection I'm very happy to learn that Scotty Fletcher is organizing a meeting in December at which the all of the educational stations and their boards of directors or representatives of the boys will be present to discuss this very critical problem of making sure that in the future we can look to various sources for funds for educational broadcasting. The other developments which I want to touch on briefly are the all channel set law which you know since Bay first all channels all sets shipped and interstate commerce must be equipped for all 82 channels VHF and UHF. This is very important for
educational broadcasting because as you know almost all of the expansion for educational broadcasting will be in the UHF. We have been led to believe that the new law would disrupt the pattern of distribution and throw the country into a turmoil. As it turned out the law has worked very well there's been very little very few ripples on the surface people continue to buy their sets and they pay very little more for it and they have been paying for a 12 channel set. I expect that in this year we will that the industry will produce at least three million channel sets which should bring up the level of receiver is available to the public at somewhere in the other 25 percent level. And this is the beginning of the Tran which within five to 10 years we will see all channels in the homes of the entire public. The commission in order to realizes that all channel sets alone may not be the answer and that
has been cooperating with industry groups in the committee for competitive and all channel broadcasting. I have attended some of these meetings and I have been surprised to hear some of the commercial people say that they're looking forward to having educational stations come into their communities and build up the circulation for them. In the course of Harley's report as president he mentioned two items which he said are among the most important problems for the educational community in the next few years. One that he mentioned was CATV and the other was the copyright revision. There is no question but that the growth of CATV is having a tremendous impact on broadcasting generally not only educational but more particularly
commercial. And the commission. Has been very much concerned about the effect it may have on the growth of UHF and on the growth of broadcasting in small communities. There's been a great deal of pressure to have a law which would give us authority over CATV systems generally that was a community until the television systems and the chances are that in the next year such a law will be passed and then the problem will be back in our lap. Well now that we have the authority what are we going to do about it. We have adopted some interim policies which the courts have upheld and which broadcasters have some measure of protection from the impact of community antenna systems coming in to their communities and we have established a research unit that was small group to gather together all of the available information to help chart our policy in the future.
Now this does have a bearing on educational stations as well as commercial. Increasingly the CATV is picking up or is planning to pick up educational stations and bring them into can be other communities. I think many of you may have heard the speaker of this morning who said that in most places the CATV was an extension of the existing station and to the extent that it is an extension and that is true in a number of places it obviously is a plus because it brings educational programs to communities which might not otherwise get such programs. However it's not quite that simple because we already have indications in Schenectady and Hartford and other places where the programs which are being brought into the community from educational stations elsewhere are not designed to help the local educational station in fact. Become a competitor a
competitor of the local educational station. In the case of Schenectady for example the CATV apparently is proposing to bring the New York educational station into Schenectady. In the case of Hartford there is a vote to bring both the Boston and the New York educational stations into Hartford and into New Haven. Now this is fine in terms of extending the range of the educational station. The problem it raises however is that to the extent that the local schools have become subscribers of the CATV this removes an important source of support for the local educational station. Another difficulty is that the CATV does not bring the educational materials which the which is usually the case where the local educational station is providing the program. Now how we will resolve this problem. No one yet knows but it is a very significant problem that the commission is concerned with. Finally with respect to the copyright matter as you know there is
pending a revision of the copyright laws by the consultant in the Library of Congress the commission is not the author of this revision but it is customary in Washington when a legal when I propose legislation is involved. The budget bureau to question all of the agencies that may have an interest as to what their position would be in this matter. And we are already been requested to state the position of the commission and what we generally do is the staff tries to prepare some material stated position and bring it to the commission. I recognize that this is a very thorny problem for the for the educational broadcasters if the revision goes through it will require that they pay some materials that they have up to now enjoyed without fee. And we are very sympathetic to this point of view to their needs and we've been talking with Bill Harley and his people. However I might suggest that there is another
point of view and that is what about compensation for the authors and producers of this material in our society it is customary for them to receive compensation for their efforts. And one of the ideas that has been thought about at least is the possibility of establishing some form of ask out the like system in which there would be. System of collecting which would establish the principle that educational broadcasters like must pay for their materials and will be part of our consideration. Thank you Ira. The next session I believe is scheduled to begin at 3:30. Have the urge for various reasons to leave our panel agree to stay here for questions. Please
leave conspicuously as possible. You know I think people as well as our process were ready to go except for the money. We can't issue a conditional grant based on financing because the act specifically requires that we make a finding of qualifications.
For where your space is no where absolutely prohibited by the statute this is not quite an area we can't waive the statute requires that we make this absolute funny. We're stuck with it. It has proven to be kind of a real problem if this invariably matching funds we found not too much difficulty with AGW. It's a question of time and up to NOT hasn't been any great problem at all. But I can understand where donators who say this is contingent on the state itself putting up the matching funds. This is where you have a problem with the legislature has not yet taken
action. This is in fact this is most likely the case. Legislatures are slow to move and there has been well this is a thing is almost implicit in our actions. Those cases will come to see as I understand the situation. I understand the procedure just assumes that money is because Congress is available. We can issue a CPA. If the cost of a lot of time the same story we can offer to write on occasion it's to the
legislators themselves a word could be got to reassure them that they'll commit the money. Is it practical. Should I start with you. I think if you start with your legislature we can move pretty quickly. We have no problem. I think you are stuck at a ledge that you normally you'll find the application and you will indicate that we're going to go after them. We have your application before us we will process it to the extent possible and then we'll wait. If it's too late for your time we'll ask you to update every so often but invariably what happens is most people come in they're not ready to go financially. But we do process the application. If there are certain deficiencies we advise them of deficiencies at least we get the show on the road and they can tell the legislature that while they have processed our application we are working before AGW the FCC. We've come this far and a few people come through. We can get going. Yes.
Oh I understand that RC is it running some quantitative qualitative tests out in Brooklyn with the art in cooperation with the archdiocese in Brooklyn these instructional fixed to determine optimum distances of these these new services and how far they'll go what the line of sight problems may only not be. But as yet there's been no are the result of far with us. But I understand they've got to complete these to shortly. Perhaps some of the people working for them see all the other people may be able to give us some further information and I'm sorry that my calling to the other commercial messages from Bogota Colombia did you have any comment you wanted to make or question my mind. No.
He's a gentleman he's very firm to. There was a question here you know when we say we have you here. Why an application for the safety we normally look to what your operating costs are going to be and we take that into account terms of your cash requirements so that if you've you've worked out a cash account for three month period only you're going to be deficient. We will be authorized to station with like you see you make a provision for the full operating costs. Not normally this is usually done by them on a per pupil basis people submit with their
applications signed statements from the various school districts of various schools various principal say we will participate instead of 400 students 500 students and this is all included in the application. And on that basis when we have we have made approval for this one year. When you're in the state of Texas you can go Beyond The Game. They're just going to hear this in the dark. But starting September 1st nobody's ever told the commission that before wrecking everything. Not knowing if exactly true. I'll tell you we I ducked and we've been face to experience one of them when it comes up we can make alliances.
Sure we can. Yes we should. Sure. But he will do well if we get in the fashion shows we might be able to accommodate you. And that's saying if you will only give the case but we have been known to bend back the shortest educates others are going to want to hear this for be on the planet and we're saying maybe there's a presumption of continuation in terms of legislature sectarianism. Let's let's have somebody has some affluence dropping to continue. I think it's 330. You want to continue the session or these gentlemen are willing to stay here. Mr. Parker leaves tomorrow Mr. Saadi albeit a Wednesday Dr. Goli will be here till Wednesday Dr. Hill you're going to be here till Thursday. And buttonhole them they'll be delighted to speak to you but I suggest perhaps we better conclude the session Now if you have further questions please come up to the table and give them back. Thank you very much looks like a very good.
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.
Program
National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and the FCC, National Association of Educational Broadcasters
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-7m042n6r
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/500-7m042n6r).
Description
Description
No description available
Date
1964-10-26
Topics
Environment
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:34:25
Credits
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 4319 (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.
Citations
Chicago: “ National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and the FCC, National Association of Educational Broadcasters ,” 1964-10-26, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed May 28, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-7m042n6r.
MLA: “ National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and the FCC, National Association of Educational Broadcasters .” 1964-10-26. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. May 28, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-7m042n6r>.
APA: National Association of Educational Broadcasters Convention Educational Broadcasting and the FCC, National Association of Educational Broadcasters . Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-7m042n6r