if, as many daytime-only stations have urged and WHCU urges here, presunrise service is particularly important in winter months because of adverse weather conditions and snow emergencies. The wide-coverage skywave service of class I stations is capable of rendering a valuable service in these respects, presenting national and regional news and weather information, etc., even though it cannot provide strictly local information.

59. Likewise, in our view, the arguments concerning local vis-a-vis distant service fall short of warranting a different result here. We have long recognized the importance of local radio outlets, and the importance of local early-morning broadcasting was one of the chief considerations behind our presunrise decisions of 1967 and 1968 in dockets 14419 and, for other categories of stations, in docket 18023. However, there are limits on the extent to which local broadcasting can be accommodated and a reasonable degree of allocations efficiency maintained; and in our judgment they do not encompass presunrise operation by WHCU or the other eastern class II stations under consideration here, taking into account the double loss to class I service entailed. It is sometimes said that clear channel stations program at present largely for their own metropolitan areas (traffic reports, etc.), and our concern in this respect is one reason for generally not restricting western class II operations beyond the degree proposed in the notice in docket 17562. But this does not appear to be the case with WWL. As stated in its reply comments, WWL does not present material of strictly local value to New Orleans and environs until after 7 a.m. central time, and its material presented during the hours of WHCU's presunrise operation-news, weather, and farm information-appears to be of at least possible significance to distant skywave and fairly distant groundwave audiences if they could receive it with interference from WHCU removed. To the very limited extent to which program matters can be of significance in decisions such as this, WWL has established channel usage not inconsistent with the I-A function. We also note the letters received by WWL in 1958 in connection with the CCBS survey mentioned above (par. 24 and footnote 14); WWL received letters from 138 counties in 24 States outside of its groundwave service area.

60. Other arguments concerning skywave service. WHCU and other class II parties advance certain other arguments as to why the I-A skywave service affected is of little significance the fact that it has decayed, from its full nighttime level, by the times involved here (less than 2 hours before sunrise at the I-A location); that there are multiple other skywave services available to any area suffering the loss of a particular one; and the general absence, in present circumstances, of the high degree of importance formerly attached to the clear channel concept and maintenance of clear channel integrity. We do not find, in any or the combination of these, a basis for permitting the presunrise operations under consideration here. It is true that, in most cases, the skywave service of the I-A station has begun to decay by the time of day involved here, which is later than 2 hours before sunrise when the decay of skywave transmission is usually regarded as beginning. But the decay is not as great as some of these parties would make it appear. In the case of WWL, for example, presunrise operation by WHCU begins as early as 14 hours before sunrise at New Orleans and nearly twothirds of it (approximately, 4 out of 64 month-hours) takes place more than an hour before sunrise there, before the decay has progressed very far. WHCU made its interference showing taking this factor into account, and it has been noted in paragraph 52 above, and considered in our evaluation of the situation. The material submitted shows a substantial interference area, nearly all of it white area, even as late as sunrise Ithaca in October; and we certainly cannot conclude that this service is not entitled to protection or that the loss from WHCU's operation is not substantial or significant.

61. As to the availability of other skywave service, it is true that in the areas affected here, as in the eastern United States generally, there are available at any point numerous class I skywave signals of 0.5-mv./m. 50-percent or greater intensity. But, because of the varying nature of these signals it has always been recognized that multiple skywave signals are necessary to bring even fairly satisfactory reception to areas without groundwave service at night. Thus the impairment of even one represents a significant impact on the skywave service structure. The arguments advanced as to why skywave service is unreliable, and therefore should not be afforded a high degree of protection-decay, adjacent channel interference, etc.—apply to other signals as alternative service sources as

well as to the signal under consideration, and demonstrate the need for multiple services. As to the decay argument in particular, WHCU mentions three New York City I-A stations as providing skywave signals of 0.5-mv./m. 50-percent or greater intensity to all of certain white areas depicted in its interference showing. But sunrise at New York City is substantially earlier than it is at New Orleans, so that the decay of these signals has progressed to a substantial point by the times in question here and their value as other services is less.

62. Concerning the present significance of the clear channel concept, this principle-which goes back more than 40 years and is embodied in sections 73.21(a) and 73.182(a) and elsewhere in our rules-is designed to provide, via both skywave and groundwave signals, service to those portions of the United States which cannot receive it from other stations, both because of the economic limitations on broadcast station construction and operation in sparsely settled areas and because stations of other classes are limited by interference from the numerous other stations on the same channel." Class I stations on the 25 U.S. I-A channels, and on the 20 channels on which the United States has I-B priority, are designed to meet this problem by the provision of wide-area groundwave service and very wide-coverage skywave service at night. To achieve this objective they are required to operate with high powers (50 kw. for I-A stations), and are afforded a high degree of protection." Usage of these channels by other class II stations is on a secondary basis, affording protection to this wide-coverage class I service.

63. It is said that this concept is less important today because of developments occurring since it evolved many years ago-the very widespread availability of television, and the tremendous increase in the number of AM stations, which, if they have not diminished the white areas as far as full nighttime service is concerned, do provide widespread presunrise service (as of July 1969, some 1515 class II and class III stations have presunrise authority). We do not agree that these developments remove, or greatly diminish, the need for a high degree of protection to class I skywave and groundwave service, to permit these stations to help in achieving what must be the primary AM allocation objective, the provision of some service to as much of the nation as possible, at all times. A glance at the CCBS nighttime groundwave service map and related material (par. 12. above) makes it clear that half of the area of the United States, or more, is still without satisfactory nighttime AM groundwave service and must rely on skywave service, and also that I-A stations such as WWL, WFAA/WBAP, and KSL contribute or could contribute significantly toward increasing the extent to which groundwave service is available. Television-while it is widely available directly or via translators or CATV's, perhaps more so than satisfactory AM service at night-is not radio, inter alia, with respect to the latter's greater flexibility and not demanding the exclusive attention of the audience. Presunrise AM service is more widely available than full nighttime service, and serves portions of the white areas; but it must be borne in mind that such operations are also the sources of substantial interference both to fulltime service and to each other, so that each is highly limited at night (see par. 50, above). While these operations do provide valuable early-morning local service, this is limited in area, and this is not the answer to providing service during the time involved to all or most of the white areas. We recognized this in our presunrise decision, that permitting presunrise operation on a widespread scale would result in new zones of interference on other channels, and that the wide

46 In the standard broadcast (AM) service, as in the other broadcast services, stations' signals are sources of interference to cochannel stations over a much greater distance than that to which they render useful service. Therefore, if a large number of stations are assigned to a channel each is substantially limited by interference from others, leaving areas in between with no service. This is particularly true in the AM service at night, where skywave signals, reflected by the ionosphere, are sources of interference at great distances, However, these skywave signals are also capable of providing service to great distances if properly protected and the stations use sufficient power, and class I stations are designed to render such service (the only stations so regarded).

47 Against cochannel interference, class I-A and I-B stations are protected daytime to their 0.1-mv./m. contours-thus protecting intermittent service—and to their 0.5-mv./ 50percent skywave contours at night, the latter generally encompassing a high degree of protection to groundwave service also. In the case of I-A stations, the rules provide that they are the only stations operating on their channels at night, with certain exceptions not including any of the channels used by the five class II stations filing here. See sections 73.21 (a) and 73.182 (a), (e), (1), and (j) of the rules.

coverage service of class I stations is relied on to fill in these service gaps." In any event, these operations take place only after 6 a.m. at their locations and do not provide service earlier, which is when most of the impact from WHCU occurs to WWL's groundwave service and that portion of its skywave service area which is in the central time zone. The same is true of KSL and WJJD. 64. The availability of FM. WHCU's comments, and some of the supporting letters from public officials, assert that while WHCU-FM can and does present the same programing during these hours, this is not the answer to the provision of needed presunrise service. The considerations urged are terrain problems affecting FM reception at some locations (no details are given), limitation on set circulation, the need to reach people in emergencies wherever they are via whatever receiver they have, the fact that WHCU-FM is largely aimed at an upper or middle-class audience so that the poorer portion of WHCU's listeners will either be put to the expense of buying an FM set or (more likely) losing WHCU's early morning service, and our own recognition in the presunrise decision that this is not the complete answer to the provision of early morning service.

65. We do not find these considerations of decisional significance, and in our judgment the fact that Cornell has a wide-coverage FM facility is a definite factor to be taken into account in evaluating this situation, along with the numerous other factors mentioned above, to which we give attention in the unusually extensive consideration we are according this situation. WHCU-FM's power (40 k.w. E.R.P.) and antenna height (730 ft. a.a.t.) are, in combination, greater than those which would be permitted a class B station at Ithaca under present FM assignment rules. Therefore it provides a primary service (1 mv./m.) out to a distance of 35 miles or more, further than a new class B station would serve and well beyond the distance to which WHCU (AM) serves presunrise, as well as a stronger than usual signal at points within that distance. With this and two other commercial FM stations (both unaffiliated with AM) operating at Ithaca, we cannot conclude that terrain and set circulation problems, separately or together, make this less than a significant medium of communication, unlimited as to time. As to the other considerations mentioned, if WHCU's service is as valuable to its area as it claims, we see no reason to believe that FM sets in the area will not be distributed widely enough to permit reception of it via that service to the extent the public interest may require. We note in this connection that WHCU will have a reasonable amount of time to promote its FM service before termination of its presunrise AM operation. Considering the availability of WHCU-FM with its large facilities, the other Ithaca AM station with presunrise authority, and the possibility of operation of the AM station during presunrise and other nondaytime hours in times of real community emergency under section 73.98, we are not persuaded that the need to reach the audience in emergencies is sufficient to warrant continuation of the AM operation. While our presunrise decision recognized that FM is not the complete answer to the provision of early morning radio service, that was based largely on two considerations which appear to be largely or entirely absent here the lack of FM development and set circulation in remote areas, and the fact that FM channel assignments are not always available to daytime-only stations.49

66. Moreover, if FM is not the answer here in some respects, it is no more so, and likely less so, in the much greater areas and populations which lose the service of WWL through WHCU's interference-largely outlying areas where set circulation is often less and the number of stations in a particular area is often smaller. See, for example, footnote 40, above.

67. In this connection we also note an argument made by WHLO, that if FM is a substitute for local class II presunrise AM operations (as CCBS claims),

48 See the report and order in docket 14419, par. 16; 8 F.C.C. 2d 703, 10 R.R. 2d 1588 (1967).

49 See report and order in docket 14419, appendix A, pars. 20-21; 8 F.C.C. 2d 712-713, 10 R.R. 2d 1602.

50 With respect to the economic burden of buying FM sets to receive WHCU-FM, if this is a consideration here it is likewise pertinent with respect to the greater areas and populations which lose WWL's service through interference. According to "Standard Rate and Data" (July 1968), the annual consumer spendable income (1966) for Tompkins County was $9.170 per household. This is greater than nearly all of the counties in the white areas losing WWL's skywave or groundwave service mentioned above, and considerably more than most of them.

it is likewise appropriate as a substitute for class I service which may be lost as a result-for example, giving class I stations a series of FM satellites to serve their wide-coverage areas. This proposal can hardly be taken seriously. Bearing in mind the very wide range of AM groundwave coverage as compared to FM, and the tremendously greater skywave AM range, it would take a very large number of FM stations to achieve this for even one class I AM station. Aside from the problem of finding enough FM channels (which would certainly exist in the eastern part of the country), the impact on FM channel availability for other users and the obvious competitive and sociological problems, this would be a grossly and patently inefficient use of spectrum space-the use of many 200-kc. channels to replace the service rendered by one 10-kc. channel. This illustrates one reason why skywave service is important and entitled to protection: Despite its limitations, it is a highly efficient means of serving tremendous

areas.

68. WHCU's arguments concerning interference to WWL. As mentioned hereinabove, WHCU makes a number of arguments to the effect that its interference impact on WWL's groundwave and skywave service is minimal. In addition to the decay argument already discussed, these include: (1) The assertion that lower interference ratios should be used in these determinations, rather than the 20-to-1 cochannel interference ratio specific in the rules; (2) the interference within the 0.5-mv./m. groundwave contour is immaterial because the affected area lies almost entirely within WWL's distortion zone (zone of interference between its skywave and groundwave signals) and thus is not an area of satisfactory reception of WWL anyhow; (3) with respect to interference to groundwave service beyond the 0.5-mv./m. contour, such service is not protected against presunrise interference under the rules and Commission policies, for the reason that the class I station's skywave signal is the dominant one in most of this area (and here overrides WHCU's intereference), and the inner portion of it is within the distortion zone; and (4) the small amount of time the interference occurs within the 0.5-mv/m. groundwave contour if it is evaluated diurnallyat only part of the locations along that contour and during only part of the presunrise operating time.

69. As to the matter of interference ratios, we are not persuaded that the evaluation of WHCU's interference should be on the basis of a ratio substantially lower than that historically used and provided in the rules, such as 10-to-1 or 5-to-1. It is true that 20-to-1 was adopted many years ago (and affirmed in the course of the Clear Channel decision), on the basis of what listeners regard as generally acceptable. Possibly, as WHCU urges, more interference can exist without preventing the receipt of intelligible material, if the listener's desire to receive it is strong enough, although we do not know how great the difference would be. We recognized in the 1967 presunrise decision that there may be merit in the argument that listener tolerance of interference in listening to news, weather, etc. may be higher than the traditional ratio would indicate." But we do not believe, in connection with the provision of service for general reception purposes, including news, weather and farm information, that listeners should be required or expected to strain their ears to pick up the desired signal, to an extent substantially greater than our traditional ratio contemplates, or that there is warrant for using in our evaluation the lower ratios urged by WHCU. This is certainly true as to interference to skywave service, which is variable anyhow, and we also believe it is true of groundwave service even though that is steadier. The former CONELRAD system, referred to by WHCU, is not a precedent. This was a system designed for use in times of grave national crisis, with the purpose, as much as anything else, of minimizing the number of stations remaining on the air so as to cut down their potential usefulness in guiding the enemy. The lower ratios used-which led to interference complaints when the system was tested-are not appropriate for adoption in a general broadcast allocation arrangement. In any event, WHCU's material shows substantial interference to WWL's skywave service even using the lower ratios, as noted above. We conclude that the extent of interference to WWL's service from WHCU is not greatly less than that indicated using the 20-to-1 ratio specified; but even using the lesser ratios suggested it is still substantial.5

52

51 See report and order in docket 14419, appendix A, par. 23; 8 F.C.C. 2d 714, 10 R.R. 2d 1603.

52 WHCU did not make a specific showing as to the effect use of lower ratios would have on the showing of interference to WWL groundwave service.

53

70. Nor can we accept WHCU's arguments concerning WWL distortion or self interference within the 0.5-mv./m. groundwave contour, and the insignificance of interference outside that contour. Even if the former concept were appropriate for consideration in this situation, as presented in its comments. WHCU's calculation of WWL's distortion zone is a fairly close one. It depends on one factor (the location of WWL's 0.5-mv./m. contour) which is not entirely clear, and two others (the values of the WWL and WHCU skywave signals) which are evaluated only on one particular set of diurnal standards (the CCBS curves), at a particular point in time before sunrise, and, in the case of the WWL signal, reaching the stated value only for 50 percent of the time even at that presunrise moment. Under other standards and at other times (e.g., later during the presunrise period) the relationship might well not exist. Therefore the existence of the distortion zone, so as to eliminate any impact from WHCU on WWL's groundwave service within and near the 0.5-mv./m. contour, is not established. In any event, it has been settled for a number of years that this concept is not appropriate in evaluating AM service and interference, because of its complexity difficulty and uncertainty as well as modern receiver developments lessening the impact of fading. See the note to section 73.182 (i) of the rules and WDZ Broadcasting Company, 17 F.C.C. 609, 7 R.R. 443 (1953), and cases cited therein. We see no reason to adopt a different approach here. Moreover, a close comparison of the WHCU material with the nighttime groundwave service map submitted by CCBS and WWL (which takes into account this distortion factor) shows a small but substantial area where WWL renders nighttime groundwave service in the absence of WHCU's presunrise signal and which is within the area of interference from that signal, nearly all of it white area (WHCU itself shows a very small such area).

71. We also conclude that interference from WHCU outside of the 0.5-mv./m. groundwave contour but within the 0.1-mv./m. contour cannot be disregarded. While the Commission's rules and decisions are not completely explicit concerning protection to class I nighttime groundwave service, this is because the question does not normally arise, with the 0.5-mv./m. 50-percent skywave contour normally extending far beyond the 0.1-mv./m. groundwave contour under full nighttime conditions so that protection of the former includes a high degree of protection to the latter. Section 73.182 (j) recognizes that class I stations are protected from interference beyond their 0.5-mv./m. groundwave contours, into the intermittent groundwave service area. We conclude that interference caused by WHCU outside of the 0.5-mv./m. contour, but within the 0.1-mv./m. contour. may be considered in this situation. As noted in paragraph 49, such interference from WHCU occurs during all or virtually all of the presunrise operation, and all but small portions of the area involved are white area as far as other available groundwave service is concerned.5

55

72. With respect to the small amount of time and area the interference assertedly affects, this has been noted and considered above in connection with interference to skywave and groundwave service. Well into the presunrise period, and even at sunrise at Ithaca in October if a 20-to-1 ratio is used, extensive areas, including much white area, are affected. WHCU and WWL both show that the interference to goundwave service does not occur to the western portion of the area within the WWL 0.5-mv./m. contour, and if a diurnal evaluation is made it does not occur within any of it during substantial portions of the presunrise operating time (see footnote 37). Nevertheless, the interference is substantial, both geographically and in time even if a diurnal evaluation is made. During nearly all of the presunrise period (all but 15 minutes in December)

53 Comparison of the WWL and WHCU maps showing this contour indicates some differences in its location.

54 WHCU refers to section 73.182 (y), concerning synchronously operated AM stations and providing that satisfactory service is not rendered where the signal of one exceeds half of that of the other. This rule refers to two stations rather than self-interference, and, since operations of this type which have existed have been located close together (e.g.. BostonSpringfield, Mass., and Charlotte-Shelby, N.C.), the reference is primarily to mutual groundwave interference. See the "KOB" decision, 25 F.C.C. 706, 16 R.R. 789.

55 Section 73.182 (j) states that "Only Class I stations are assigned for protection from interference from other stations into the intermittent service area." The decision in E. Weaks McKinney Smith, 22 F.C.C. 311. 13 R.R. 477 (1957), cited by both WHCU and WWL, is not completely clear in this respect.

56 In the absence of any specific details, we cannot accord weight to WHCU's assertion that the area outside of WWL'S 0.5-mv./m._contour is subject to serious adjacent-channel interference from station WDMG, Douglas, Ga., a station some 400 miles from New Orleans.