The Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) said today that, following press criticism of the intention to allocate channel 0 to Melbourne and Brisbane in the present phase of television development, he had received a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and had since had detailed discussions with the Board’s leading radio engineers who had expressed clearly the reasons for the Board’s recommendations. He was satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the allocation was the correct one.
The Board’s report, Mr. Davidson said, was a somewhat technical document which may not be readily understood by the layman. He had decided therefore to issue a statement which, while not being technical, would nevertheless indicate to viewers generally the overall reasons for the Board’s recommendations. He added, however, that the Board’s complete report was available to any one who wished to see it.
Although the use of channel 0 in Melbourne and Brisbane-and also later in other capital cities except Hobart would necessitate some modifications to the tuning arrangements of" ten-channel " receivers, this would be the case also if channels 1, 4, 5, 5A or 11 were allocated. The Minister explained that, when TV was first introduced, only ten channels were available and sets were manufactured on that basis. When it became obvious in 1960 that TV development throughout Australia would be retarded if additional channels were not provided, a Frequency Allocations Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor Huxley was set up by the Government to examine the whole scope of frequency allocations in Australia and particularly the availability of frequencies for television purposes. The Committee was able to point the way to the provision of three additional TV channels in the VHF band. This, however, necessitated an alteration to the frequencies of some of the original channels and the only channels which remained unaltered were 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. A small change was made to channel 10 but this was of little significance so far as receiver tuning was concerned.
Mr. Davidson said that the comment made most frequently on this matter was that channels 5, 5A or 10 should have been allocated to the new stations in Melbourne and Brisbane, and that channel 0 should have been allotted to country stations. He reiterated that had either channel 5 or 5A been proposed, " ten-channel " sets would still need modification. Moreover, it was undesirable to use channel 5 near channel 2 because of possible interference difficulties.
He said that channel 0, because of its long range propagation characteristics, could be used only sparingly in country areas if serious interference to other country stations and, indeed, to city stations also, was to be avoided. To use channel 0 in the country in Victoria and Queensland particularly would impose a restriction on the number of stations which may ultimately be established in country areas, having regard to the large population in a relatively small area in Victoria and the density of population in the southern portion of Queensland. However, channel 0 with directional aerials could be utilized to advantage in city areas without serious interference to overall Australian reception. Channel 10 in each State had already been allocated to country stations. In any case, the use of channel 10 in either Melbourne or Brisbane would have created difficulties in country areas. The other alternative that had been mentioned - channel 3 - was already allotted to country national stations and could not be altered without a serious setback to TV development in country areas. Moreover, the use of channel 3 in the cities would impose difficulties for viewers in that there could be interference to reception from fixed and mobile radio services-such as taxi cabs. Channel 11 could not be used in either capital city because of receiver oscillator effects.
