Opinion ID: 517397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of ITFS

Text: 2 The Instructional Television Fixed Service was created in 1963. See Educational Television, 39 F.C.C. 846 (1963) (1963 Report), recon. denied, 39 F.C.C. 873 (1964). ITFS was designed principally for use by educational institutions: the FCC stated that the most important function of the new service would be to reach groups of students assembled in classrooms or other similar places for the specific purpose of using the instructional material so transmitted. 1963 Report, 39 F.C.C. at 846. ITFS uses frequencies which cannot be received on an ordinary television. Instead, the programming is transmitted to specific receive sites at which students (or other viewers) are gathered to watch the material. Originally thirty-one channels were allocated to ITFS, see 1963 Report, 39 F.C.C. at 851. 1 In 1971 this number was reduced to twenty-eight. 2 See Instructional Television, 30 F.C.C.2d 197, 200 (1971). The regulation as originally promulgated limited licensees to the use of five channels in a given area, see 1963 Report, 39 F.C.C. at 852, 863; in 1966 this limit was reduced to four. See Instructional Television Fixed Service, 7 Rad.Reg.2d (P & F) 1768, 1770 (1966). 3 In the first two decades after the creation of ITFS, the Commission noted both an underutilization of the medium for educational purposes and an increasing demand for the frequencies by other potential users. Most notable among these competitors were providers of programming in the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS). 3 In 1983, the Commission reallocated eight channels to MDS use, leaving twenty for ITFS. 4 See Instructional TV Fixed Service, 94 F.C.C.2d 1203, 1236-37 (1983). The FCC also liberalized the restrictions on ITFS programming by permitting ITFS stations to lease channel capacity to commercial programmers (such as MDS providers) during those times when educational programming was not being presented. 4 These changes were prompted by the Commission's apparent belief that too much of the spectrum had been reserved exclusively for ITFS and that channel capacity was consequently being wasted. Soon afterwards, however, the Commission began to worry that the pendulum might swing too far in the opposite direction. The dramatic increase in ITFS applications prompted by the new leasing rules threatened to squeeze out local educational institutions seeking to provide the programming for which ITFS had originally been intended. The Commission emphasized that the foundation of the service must continue to be that for which it was designed--the transmission of educational materials to accredited schools for the formal education of students enrolled there. Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 98 F.C.C.2d 1249, 1252 (1984) (Further NPRM). Of particular concern was the Commission's observation that most nonprofit organizations which have applied for ITFS licenses have no local presence in the communities where facilities are sought. Id. at 1256. Though the FCC did not wish to exclude nonlocal applicants entirely, it clearly was worried by the prospect that a profusion of such applicants might make it difficult for traditional ITFS providers to obtain frequencies. The Commission therefore requested comments concerning possible means of accommodating local and nonlocal interests. See Further NPRM, 98 F.C.C.2d at 1257-58. 5 The Commission issued its new rules on June 20, 1985. See Second Report and Order, 101 F.C.C.2d 50 (1985) (1985 Order). The rules established a one-year local priority period beginning on July 28, 1985. All local applications filed during that period, as well as all local applications pending as of the beginning of that period, would be preferred to any mutually exclusive application filed by a nonlocal entity. Once the local priority period ended, mutually exclusive applicants for remaining frequencies would be compared using a point system. Local applications filed after the priority period would receive points, but would not be automatically preferred to nonlocal competitors. 6 HITN, along with other parties, sought reconsideration of the Commission's ruling. On March 14, 1986, the Commission issued an order modifying the 1985 Order in some respects. See Instructional Television Fixed Service (Reconsideration), 59 Rad.Reg.2d (P & F) 1355 (1986) (Reconsideration). The Reconsideration provided that all nonlocal entities whose applications were pending when the local priority period began would be given ninety days to amend their applications to include a local entity within their ownership structures. Applicants who successfully accomplished such amendments would be considered local applicants and could thus compete against other local parties under the comparative criteria. HITN did not seek judicial review of any aspect of the Reconsideration. 5