Memorandum from Harry M. Plotkin to Stephen J. Spingarn

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON 25, D.C. ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS August 8, 1949 TO THE SECRETARY MATIONAL TRUMAN MEMORANDUM TO MR. STEPHEN J. SPINGARN ARCAMES AMD RACOROS SERVICE This is with reference to your memorandum of August 5, 1949, concerning the letter of August 1, 1949, which Chairman Johnson of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee has written to the President with respect to the Commission's pending proceed- ings to revise its television rules, regulations, standards and allocation table. You request, in your memorandum, that we prepare (1) a suggested draft of a reply from the President to Senator Johnson, and (2) a memorandum giving you background on the subject matter involved. I believe that the following information will prove helpful to you in understanding the role of the Commission in this matter. As you may know, it has always been the belief of the Commission that there should be enough television channels available in this country to provide a nationwide, competitive system of television broadcasting, one that will serve all the people of this country and not just those living in large metropolitan areas. At the same time, the Commission felt that opportunities to enter the television broad- cast field should be afforded as many people as possible. This aim has not been possible of fulfillment due to the fact that since 1945 when the Commission first promulgated its television allocation table, there have been available for assignment only 12 television channels in the Very High Frequency (VHF) band (30-300 Mc). On May 5, 1948, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the proceeding entitled "In the Matter of Amendment of Section 3.606 of the Commission's Rules" (Docket No. 8975). Section 3.606 contains the Commission's "Table Showing allocations of tele- vision channels to metropolitan districts in the United States, " and the Commission proposed in its Notice to expand said Table. A copy of the Notice is enclosed as "Attachment I." Numerous counter-proposals were filed, as is indicated by the list of witnesses in the enclosed "Order of Testimory' designated "Attachment II". During the course of the two-week hearing that followed, evidence was presented concerning (1) tropospheric interference to existing and proposed television stations, (2) the use of directional antennas, (3) the use of increased power, and (4) conflicting proposals for closer and wider spacing between television stations than is presently provided for by the Commission,