OCR Text |
Show Free Television Talk Revived In Southern Utah Translator Service Declared Unlawful by FCC Bringing supposedly "free" television tel-evision to St. George and the assertion as-sertion by certain Cedar City residents re-sidents that similar service can be provided here, has created quite a stir again on the question ques-tion of television for the so,-hern Utah area. It has been found possible and feasible to "translate," or pick up and rebroadcast, TV programs from the Las Vegas area into St. George. This is the same type of rebroadcasting that local enthusiasts enthus-iasts have maintained could be done in Cedar City. However, the proposal here is that a Salt Lake channel be "translated" for the Cedar City area. This type of television has been quite successful in St. George, but has never really been tested in the Cedar City area. Tests, apparently very successful, have been run on sets' at the "translator" station, but the programs pro-grams have not been rebroadcast rebroad-cast over the city to determine how well the signal could be picked up on individual sets. NaoUoihl Coat It has been pointed out that for a total cost of $12,537.58, plus Ian insignificant cost for maintenance, main-tenance, "free" television can be provided for St George, and in fact is being provided. To meet this cost each television set purchaser pur-chaser is being asked to make a contribution, or It is understood takrf stock in a non-profit corporation. cor-poration. This, it Is maintained, wiU provide television for the Dixie city for a period of three years. Proponents claim that similar service at a similar cost could be provided for Cedar City. But, as previously stated, tests have not been completed throughout the city, and most people claim that the Salt Lake signal to be re-broadcast re-broadcast here Is not nearly as' strong as the Las Vegas signal being rebroadcast In St. George. Significant Obstacle In spite of all these claims one very" major and significant ob- ctarla ctanrla in tha WAV ftf Rlirh service. This is the fact that the Federal Communications Commission Com-mission has declared the practice prac-tice Illegal, In violation of the Communications Act of 1934. Hearing on the matter of legal-Ity legal-Ity are now being held by the Commission and in the courts and unjil and unless the practice Is declared legal and such translator trans-lator or booster stations are licensed, li-censed, it must be assumed that 'uch practice is in violation of Federal law. The following statement Issued by the Commission Is clear and errmhatic. The statement Is as follows: "Until such trme as the Commission Com-mission may finalize rule making mak-ing and license 'translator or 'bonder stations, unlicensed operation op-eration of these transmitter or anv other radio transmitter ap-oartus ap-oartus is considered bv the Commission Com-mission to bo in violation of the Communications Art of 1934. as amended. The rtenalfles orovlded for such vWatlon include a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment im-prisonment for not more than one year or both for the first offence of-fence and $10,000 and two years' i for the second offense." |