TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS* OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING TO EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-01634R000300060032-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 19, 1998
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: January 1, 1957
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Reler9eQ60 - DP78-01634R000'0032-8
TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS* OF
U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
TO EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Brief Statement for use as Background
Information in Connection with Conference
of Chief of EE Missions,, 1957
Caution: These conclusions should be used with
caution since they are based for the most part
upon information derived from monitors maintained
at peripheral check points. Such information is
considered valid for adjacent parts of the target
area., but the specific area of validity has not
been established. In some instances the target
areas are close to the check point, but in other
instances the distance is great. It is clear that
such checks will not indicate the situation in the
target area in the neighborhood of local (ground-
wave) jamming stations. Peripheral checks are
generally more valid for high frequency than for
medium or low frequency broadcasts.
VOA--The technical effectiveness of broadcasts in Russian
decreased slightly in 1956 as compared with 1955 (based on
information from four peripheral stations), and it is now
estimated that in rural areas near the western borders of the
USSR about 30 percent of the programs can be received satis-
factorily on at least ore high frequency. Rural reception
further east is probably very poor,, based on observations by
monitor and supplemented by embassy travellers to
the Kirgiz SSR and eastern Kazakh in'April and may 1956.
c
0
p
y
*By technical effectiveness is meant the measure of the
availability of a satisfactory signal in the target area for
reception by an interested listener with a suitable receiver.
The question of the effectiveness of the message of the program
is not included here. Unless specifically mentioned otherwise,
the comments are with respect to high-frequency broadcasting.
Approved For Release 2001178-01634R000300060032-8
 Approved For Rele 6001/07/ -O1634R00OteQ0032-8
Reception in those urban areas in the west which are affected
by local jammers is probably comparable with that at Moscow
where 5 percent of observed VOA main Russian-language programs
were received satisfactorily during 1956.
RLN--Reception of RLN is estimated to be somewhat lower than
VOA Russian in rural areas of western USSR. Monitoring reports
and some-other urban locations indicate
virtually no satisfactory reception.
2. Armenian, Georgian, and other Caucasus Languages
VOA--Armenian rural reception is somewhat better than Russian,
and Georgian is somewhat better than Armenian, based on observations
at Tehran.
RLN--Rural reception of RLN programs in these areas is estimated
to be somewhat lower than that of VOA. No reports have been
received on urban reception.
3. Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian
VOA--Rural reception of these languages was much better than
Russian, based on observations About two-thirds of
the programs were heard satisfactorily on at least one high
frequency.
4. Ukrainian
VOA--Rural reception of Ukranian seems to be somewhat worse
25X1A6a that the Baltic lan a es but e ian, based upon
observations' However, the
distance to the target area from these posts make the reliability
of the results less certain.
25X1A6a
RLN- monitoring indicated about 3 out of 10 Ukrainian
programs were received satisfactorily, while the figure
25X1A6a was 1 out of 10.
VOA--Rural reception of Uzbek may be comparable to Ukranian,
but again the distance from the target area to the monitor post
make the reliability uncertain.
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : L;IA-KU -01634R000300060032-8
 ' rat, 'a.>
Approved For Re1~001/07/2 ."3
8 , . Q 634R00QJP0060032-8
B. Broadcasts to Satellites
1. Albanian
VOA is not deliberately jammed and is receivable satisfactorily
a high percentage of the time.
2. Bulgarian
VOA -- aural reception is fairly good and about - out of 5
programs can be received satisfactorily on at least one frequency.
In Sofia, this figure is 2 out of 3. No systematic observations
have been reported from other cities in Bulgaria.
RFE Rural reception is generally better since the increase
in facilities on Bulgarian/Rumanian in January 1956. Nearly all
programs are receivable on at least one frequency. No reports
have been received from the target area.
3. Czechslovakian
VOA -- Rural reception is probably satisfactory on at least
one frequency on nearly all programs. Reports
indicate very poor reception due to local jammipg.
has reported jamming centers in most of the major cities, so it
seems likely that reception in these places is nearly or equally
as poor as in Prague.
RFE -- Reception conditions are estimated to be closely similar
to those of VOA-
4. Hungarian
VOA -- Rural reception is reported as possible on 4 out of 5
programs on at least one frequency, based upon routine monitoring
with a confirmatory check at the Yugoslav
and Austrian borders in June. The improved urban reception caused
by disruption to the local jamming service in the October rebellion
has now a arentl reverted to previous conditions, according to
Here about 30 percent of the programs
were audible on at least one frequency.
RFE -- Rural reception is generally satisfactory on at least
one frequency on most programs. The improvement which occurred
at the time of the uprising in reception in Budapest lasted through
January 1957, but by the end of February local jamming had begun.
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 CIA-RDP78-01634R000300060032-8
 Approved For Relaas4jO01/07/ DP78-01634R00@3DJ0032-8
5, Polish
VOA--Tt is now virtually certain that local jamming has been
abandoned in Poland, although considerable jamming continues on
Polish language programs from other Bloc countries. Reports from
in March indicate good reception even in Warsaw. About
)0 to 9 percent of the programs are receivable satisfactorily on
at least one frequency.
1tFE--Reception is similar to that of VOA.
6. Rumanian
VOA--Peripheral monitoring indicates that rural reception in
Ruarania is not quite as good as in Bulgaria although the difference
is alight.
RFB--II3early all programs are receivable on at least one
frequency in rural areas.
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
VOA--Reception of medium-wave programs in the USSR is generally
poor as reported by peripheral monitors. Best reception reported
was BBstonian where about one-third of the programs on 1196 kc was
received satisfactorily
VOA--Reception of medium wave in the Satellites is good only
is Albania and Poland. Reception of Hungarian has averaged about
2 out of 5 but only about 1 in 6 in Budapest.
Reception of Bulgarian and ft mmanian has been good but
monitoring along the borders indicates that jamming is much more
effective there than Reception of Czechoslovakian at
Vienna has averaged a out one satisfactory program out of every five.
~i'I;- medium-wave broadcasts (in Czechoslovakian only) were
virtually inaudible in 1956, and less than one out of
ten ti ere audible in
L. Long Wave
VOA--Between one and two out of every ten long-:wave broadcasts
in Russian were audible at the ueripheral monitoring posts in
;urope in l956.
OA- wWith the abandonment of local jamming in Poland, effec-
tiveness of long-wave Polish broadcasts increased noticeably, and
it is estimated that even in urban areas at least one out of every
two broadcasts is audible. About one or two of every ten broad-
casts in Czechoslovakian and Hungarian were satisfactoryily received
at the peripheral posts in 1956.
Approved For Release 2001/07/28 : CIA-RDP78-01634R000300060032-8