"\'oncommercial Edacatimwl FJ! Symphoily ,YrhearA' 581
FCC 6(;-9fl,l
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMuNICATIONS COMMISSION
IY",snrXGTOX, D.C. 205M
In the :'.Iatter of )
£\~rrXD)fEXT (IF SrnpART C OF PART -73, Xox-
C.'))DIEnC.L\L EDFCc\TIOXc\L F:'.I BnO;\DCAST R:'.I-SSI
~TATIOXSTo PRO\-IDE FOR A XATIOXAL SY::\I-
PllOXY NET\YORK
(Adopted Xonmber D, 196(;)
By THE C03LUISSIOX.
1. The Commission has before it for eonsideration a petition filed on
Xovember 8, ID65, and amended on July 7,1966, by Symphony Xet,
work .A.-ssoe-iation, Inc. (Synlphony), requesting rulenlllking looking
toward the reservation, for a period of 3 years, of 94 specific assign,
ment8 in the noncommercial educational FlU broadcast band (chan,
]leIs 201-220, 88.1-DUl :'.IC/8) for a natiomvide Xational Symphony
Xetwork.'
2. The proposal is, in brief, the reservation of educational FlU as,
signments in 9,l communities throughout the United States (includ'
ing 6 in Alaska and Hawaii) for the purpose ofcreatin~a IUltiomvide
Kational Symphony Ketwork designed "to bring the class appeal of
great music to mass "ppeal." This network would be of stations in,
dividually owned, primarily by local symphony orchestras and pos 
sibly others, with the Symphony Network Association, located in Bir 
lninghanl~...~Ia.~pra~idingthe broadcast services for the network, and
ficting as the ad"ertising agency which "takes a product and Inerchan 
dises It."
a. Petitioner urges that a national network is necessary bee-nuse
the audience which listens to an FlU classical music station is approxi 
mately 2 percent and, since 2 percent of most markets is an inadequate
listener base for advertising~a nationwide network conunanding 2 per 
cent of the, audience nationally is the answer. Such an audience, Sym 
phony arvues, ""ould give a broad sales potential for qualified na 
tional sponsors.~~sto sponsoring such progrnffis, it snggests the
magazine concept of advertising, with IS national sponsors pel' day, 1
per hour, and with each sponsor's time rotated 1 hour every day. It
envisions national sponsors which have backed quality programs in
t he past, The net revenue of the funds so raised would be returned
to the local symphony orchestra's budget, or that of the college or edu-
IThp list of locations in which reservations are reqnested b shown in theatt:1('IIl~d
;1ppendi::c
;; F.C.C. 2d
lOC-51!1-fiG--I
582 Federal Communication., Commi'"ion Reports
cationalinstit~ti.onin the. e--:ent the licensee is not a local nonprofit
symphony musIcIans aSSOCIatIon or symphony orchestra organization.'
4. Symphony contends that the educational broadcasters have failed
to use radIO as an efficient, effective universal communications medium.
because it endeavors to stimulate the listener by an intellectual appeal.
while what is needed is the emotional appeal, used so effectively by the
commercial broadcaster. It contends that only through such an ap.
peal can classical music increase the popular enjoyment and under 
standing. While it does not intend to replace or oppose the existinO"
educational broadcasting system, Symphony states that it intendst~
supplement existing efforts "in hopes to show education a better and
more effective means of communications."
5. The National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB)
and three individual educational stations C\VGLS-FM, Glassboro,
N.J., KSDA, La Sierra, Calif., and WSOU, South Orange, N.J.) filed
statements in opposition to the Symphony petition.S These parties
submit that the noncommercial educational FM: band is allocated for
use by nonprofit educational organizations for the transmission of
programs to specific schools and such stations may also transmit edu 
cational, cultural, and entertainment programs to the general public
but that the subject proposal would be inconsistent with the require·
ments and objectives of these rules. They contend that the scarce
frequencies are being used at a higher rate than ever before and that,
therefore, these scarce frequencies should not be diverted from their
primary comprehensive use for programing all aspects of education,
instruction, culture, and entertainment. Other contentions advanced
against the proposal are that most metropolitan markets are alreadv
served with classical music, the assignments for this purpose would
have a detrimental effect on educational FM stations, that educational
programing should include much more than classical music, and that
there are enough programs of the nature proposed to satisfy the needs
of the 2 percent who are attracted to it. NAEB notes that in its
amendment of July 7, 1966, Symphony states that "for the present, all
advertising on these educational FM frequencies in the Symphony
Network be deleted." However, the proposal was based upon adver 
tising for needed revenues but that no alternative source of financ 
ing is proposed by petitioner. NAEB further states that it is as con 
cerned about the financial difficulties of educational radio services as
is the petitioner and suggests that educators, the Commission, and even
Congress may have to take a new look at forms of underwriting edu 
cational radio and television service, but that this should not be re 
solved in the limited context as that presented by the subject petition.
NAEB further points out that a similar petition was previously denied
by the Commission in George E. Remp, 14 R.R. 657, 658 (1956). In
reply to these oppositions Symphony urges that it is interested in all
the problems faeing educational radio: Communication efficiency, or 
ganizational efficiency, and money. It states that educational radio
will constantly flounder until these problems are resolved and that
2 In its amendment of July 7, 100&, Symphony reQuestf'i an amendment of ttl' original
pptltion to the etl'ect that, "for the present. all advertising on these educational FM
frequencies in the Symphony Network petition be deleted."
3 The NAEB opposition and Symphony's reply were filed late but are beIng conf'liderpd
under the cfrcuillstances presented herein.
;j F.e.C. 2d
-,"oneommercia] Educati<J11al FM Symphony Netwop!.. 583
the "selling" of fine music to the American public through an FM
network will pave the way for greater effectiveness of present educa 
tional broadcasting facilities.
6. The Symphony Network Association proposal would, in effect,
carve out from the FM band now reserved for noncommercial educa 
tional stations a number of frequencies for the exclusive use of sym 
phony orchestras. The proposal lacks merit for a number of reasons
which are outlined below:
(a) The type of service contemplated is presently provided on lllany
commercial and noncommercial FlU stations. Almost every large city has
at least one, and in many cases more than one, station providing symphonic
music. .As a matter of fact many of the educational noncommercial rndio
stations in the reserved band carry a preponderance of symphony programs.
(b) The noncolllmercial educational radio stations are growing at a fairly
rapid rate. In many areas there is already a shortage of reserved channels.
The reservation of a substantial number of channels for this proposed
narrower use may seriously handicap the development of a full educational
radio service which would provide, in addition to symphonic music, other
cultural entertainment as wen as instructional, children's, discussion, and
news programs. "''''-e are not convinced that we have set aside too many
channels for broader educational use and that we can, therefore, afford to
take some of these channels and restrict them to a narrower usage.
(0) Assuming, for the sake of argument, tbat we may have more than
enongh channels for broader educational use, we must then consider whether
it would be appropriate to preempt some of these spaces for the limited
service here proposed or whether that space should be reserved for other
limited services. such as all-discussion, all-foreign language, or all-college
sports for which there may be equal or greater need. It would not appear
to us to be desirable to carve out pockets within the reserved band for a
variety of limited services. A bona fide organization which can qualify
as an applicant for a reservedF~Ifrequency and which has a limited
program objective can apply for an F:\I frequency and it will be given
conHideration under our present rules. Whether its application would be
successful would depend upon the services already available in the com 
munity and upon whether there were any competing proposals for the
frequency applied for. 'Jl'bere does not appear to be any valid reason for
the Commission to unnecessarily restrict the use to which certain frequencies
may be put.
(d) In any event, the proposal appears to be impractical. No reserva 
tions are proposed. in any really large cities for the reason that no frequencies
are available in such cities. Reservations are proposed in a number of
llledium~sizedand small communities. The communities in which reserva 
tions aTe proposed account for only approximately 12 percent of total radio
broadcast revenues. The audiences which stations in these communities
C'ould reach would account for a -similar proportion of the total population
in the country. The prospect of a national network without affiliated
stations in major cities appears to be totally unrealistic.
7. In snmmary to adopt this proposal would result in tying up
spectrum spacef~ra limit€d use with littlelikeli~oodthat, real 
istically, it could ever be so used. Furthermore, lt has not been
demonstrated that we have suffiCient space wlthm the reserved band
to adopt this proposal ,yithout endangering the development of
broader educational, noncommercial radio. There are at present over
:iOO stations in the educational FM band and an additional 15 educa 
tional stations in the commercial FU band. Applications are being
filed for additional stations at an accelerated rat€.
8.~Withrespect to the technical aspects of the Symphony proposal,
'lll analysis of thepropos~lb~sedon its comp'.lterst~dyreve:us tJ:at
it conld not meet the objectives of the petitlOner; I.e., natlonwlde
5 F.e.c. 2d
584 Federrtl Communications Commi.<sion Repod.,
coverag:e of the entire area and population of the country and that it
would have a very severe adverse impact on the potent.ial use of t.he
band by educational FM stations. 'While the plan does reserve class
B or C assignll1ents in 89~onununitiesand class t\. assignnlents in ,)
others, noa~signmentswer~apparently feasible in 11 States (mostly
ill the heanly populated Northeast). A breakdown of the assign 
ments is as follows:
11 States have 0 assignment, 12 States have 1 assignment. 14 States
have 2 a::;:signments. 8 States have 3 assigllIuents. 2 States have 4 assign 
ments, 1 State has;) assignments, 2 States have l::l assignments.
Several of the communities selected are small and far removed from
centers of populaJion. Among these are Gaylord, ]\1ich., Kosciusko,
Miss., and Morro Bay, Calif. In the 12 States in which only 1 assign 
ment is possible, coverage of the State is not possible, even~::-ith
stations using class C facilities. Thus, it ,vould not be technically
possible to reach all the country with its network signal, an objecti;e
stated by petitioner to be of great significance to its proposal. In
spite of the contention that at least 2 percent of the national audience
is necessary .to make the net\vork a financial success, 46 of the :94
selected cities have less than 30,000 population and 25 of them have
less than 10,000. Some of these are not far from large cities and are
listed presumably since the assignment could not go into the big city,
but others are far Te1l1oved frOln sueh cities. It is reeognized that
additional assignments are possible in some portions of the country.
9. As to the impact on the availability of educational FM: channels
for the regular noncommereial educational FM broadcast station,
petitioner shows that other assignments are a:vailable- in 82 percent
of the communities selected for the Symphony Network either on a
class BIeor class A basis. However, in the following 17 communities
the proposal eliminates the last available assignment for educational
use:
Denton, Tex Has none at pres;ent
El HellO. Oldu Has none at pr17S;ellt
Suit Lal.:e City. rtah Has one cla."R C
GrE'ensboro.X.C Has one lOw
C-harlottes.,ille, ya .;. __Ha~one 10 ,....
Latrobe. Pa Has. none at present
Es>::ex. :K".y Has none at present
Elmira,~_yHas one 10 w
Chautauqua, X.1:" Has none at present
Decatur. 111 Has none at present
Nekoosa, 'yis Has none at present
Sacramento, Calif Has one 10 w
1lonterey, CaliL HaR none at present
Santa Barbara, CaliL HaR one 10 ,,,
Salem, Oreg Has none at present
Xewton. Iowa Has none at present
Davenport. Iowa Has none at present
10. In making assignments to thesel~cted94 communities, pcl.itioner
takes into nccoIDlt all existmg educatIOnal statIOns m the band 88.1
to 91.9 Mc/s .and the first three commercial channels 221-223, as well
as applications as of !\Iay 31, 1966, but without regard to the future
5 F.e.C. :!d
;,YOl/commeJ'clal Educational FJI /5'ymplwJlY .;.Ypti"()I"1., 585
needs of educational interests in other communities.' Thus, tlte pro 
posed plan \yill probably preclude the possibility of making fnture
assignIllcnts in lIlany cities and communities throughout the country
whether on a protected ('ontonr basis or with an assignlllC'llt pbll.
This is eyideut from the list of precluded communities as antlined in
paragraph 9 above.' The Symphony assignment plan does not apl",ar
'0 be a complete one, especially in portions of the Far ,Yest, bnt to
the extent that additional assignments ,yere to be requested. tIle illlpUe!
on t.he regular edueationalF~1stations would be that l1HIC'h p:rentt'l'.
11. In summary we fiml that the Symphony Network is not pro 
posing a. ne1\T service, but rather one ,,,hich ell1phasizes classical lllusie
to the exclusion of other forn18 of education ,and entel'tn.illllient: dlat
if the situationpennits~eOllunercial sponsorship \youlcl besought~thus
negating the noncommercial nature of the educational F:\I broadcast
sen'ice, and that the proposal does not appear to be technically feas 
ible or at best would seriously pre,'en! the growth of educational F:\I
in nunlV cOlllnlU11ities jn the future. Thus. 'while ,ye :l.QT€'e that. the
objecti,:e of providiug rlassiealmusic to all 'the people of the, country
is all admirable objective, the cost in terms of the educational F:\l
sen'ice in general would be too great and, therefore, the subject
proposal should be denied.
12. In yiew of the foregoing, It ;., ordered, That the petition of
Symphony Ketwork Association, Inc., RM-881, Is denied. '
FEDERAL (D::\DrrNICATION,S CO::UUIRSIOX.
BEN F.'Y~\l'LE~1-':','c(,J'duJ'Y.
4 'We are this llate.issuing a notiC'p of inql1ir,l' in dockd 1'0. l,ns.;:; in,iting- ('omment;;; on
th.. plJilo"ophy of a natioll\....ide Table of Al'sig-nmpnts for use by noncommercial edueutional
F.'.I bruadca:,,! staticms, and other pertinent tpchnical ruleg, in order to prlH'ide for the
orilf'rl,v and f'ffici€"nt expansion of this important rudio servicf'.
5 Thl'" results of the proposal a.re so-mewhat pf'ssimistic in that all present a""ignments,
inelndingo the OIJI'S with 1'0 w, were treated as clas;;; B or C stations. On the oth<'r hand,
t IlP IJI'oJ!o"al ",€'ems to ('onTain errors :::nch as tlw cochannel assignments at Bristol. Tenn.,
anll Greensboro, x.c., at 1:{.<.; miles instead of the l'equir..d 180 miles, etc,
5 F,C,C. 2d
586 Federal Oommunications Oommission Rep01'ls
ApPENDIX
Location
Butte, J\'Iont.
J\Iissoula, l\Iont.
"'~ilmington,N.C.
Camden, S.C.
Greensboro, N.C.
BristOl, Tenn.
Decat.ur, Tenn.
Erin, Tenn.
Charlottesville, \.u.
Sutton, W. Va.
Latrobe, Pa.
Bangor, Maine
Essex, N. Y.
Elmira, N. Y.
Chautauqua, N. Y.
Decatur, Ill.
Nekoosa, Wis.
Gaylord, :Mich.
Albany, Ga.
'Wynne, Ark.
Rusk, Tex.
Eureka, Calif.
Red Bluff, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Reno, Nev.
J\Iontere)", Calif.
Fresno, Calif.
Morro BayJ Calif.
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Cardiff by the Sea,
Calif.
Las Yegas, Nev.
1\.ledford, Oreg.
Salem, Oreg.
Tacoma, ·Wash.
!\1edical Lake,"~ash.
Boise, Idaho
Duluth, !\'1inn.
Richfield, Minn.
N ewton, Iowa
De Soto, 1\10.
Davenport, Iowa
Greeley, Colo.
Yakima, vVash.
Hot Springs, Ark.
Fairbanks, Alaska
Maunaloa, Hawaii
91.5 _
91.5 _
88.5 _
90.L _
90.9 _
91.5 _
91.3 _
91.7 _
89.3 _
88.9 _
88.9* _
90.L _
88.9 _
90.3 _
106.9 _
91.9 _
Frequency
91.3 _
90.9 _
90.9 _
91.3 _
90.7- _
90.7- _
91.5 _
91.L _
89.7- _
90.3 _
89.5*- _
90.7 _
90.7- _
89.7- _
91.3* _
88.5* _
88.1* _
91.3 _
90.9 _
90.9 _
91.L _
89.7- _
91.9 _
90.5 _
90.9 _
89.9 _
88.9 _
90.3 _
90.3 _
90.3 _
Frequency Location
90.L Sebring, Fla.
90.9 l\liami, Fla.
89.3 Gainesville, Fla.
91.3 Pensacola, Fla.
91.5 Savannah Beach, Ga.
90.5 Athens, Ga.
89.7_ _____ Birmingham, Ala.
91.3 Kosciusko, :Miss.
91.5 Hammond, La.
90.9 Ruston, La.
90.9 Port Arthur, Tex.
91.7 Sinton, Tex.
91.3 Harlingen, Tex.
90.7 Laredo, Tex.
91.7 San Angelo, Tex.
88.5 Austin, Tex.
90.5 Denton, Tex.
91.5 Amarillo, Tex.
90.9 Hobbs, N. Mex.
90.L El Reno, Okla.
90.L A1buqnerque, N. Mex.
91.9 Las Cruces, N. Mex.
91.7 Flagstaff,Ariz.
89.7 Pueblo, Colo.
91.7 Garden City, Kans.
90.7 Newton, Kans.
90.5 l\1uskogee, Okla.
89.9 Springfield, Mo.
91.3 Lincoln, Nebr.
91.7 North Platte, Nebr.
91.7 Beresford, S. Dak.
90.9 Fargo, N. Dak.
91.7- Redfield, S. Dak.
91.7- Minot, N. Dak.
91.9 Glasgow, :Mont.
91.7 Rapid City, S. Dak.
90.5 Casper, -v\r
yo
.
91.9 Billings, !\Iont.
91.7______ Black Eagle, IHoat.
91.7 Idaho Falls, Idaho.
91.3 Salt Lake City, Utah
106.9 Juneau, Alaska
106.9 Anchorage, Alaska
106.9 Ketchikan, Alaska
91.9 Honolulu, Hawaii
91.9 Elko, Nev.
91.3 Tucson, Ariz.
91.5 Phoenix, Ariz.
*The five frequencies with an asterisk C*) are class A, all others ate cla.ss C a.nd class B power class.
5 F.e.e. 2d