Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

3 gives no indication of Committee's opinion of Cox's work. Fact is, of course, that Committee hasn't studied it yet. If Committee and/or other Senators are burned up about Fee's vote against boosters, it looks as if they're going to have to pass a law — because Commission vote was 6-1, and it was the third time it has turned thumbs down on suggestions to let boosters continue. Since this is a critical period in FCC's consideration of allocations problems, Cox's comment about vhf drop-ins is worth quoting: "It still seems that the Committee's conclusion in its interim report was sound, and that in view of the failure of the Commission to make any progress toward the achievement of an all-uhf system for all, or a major part, of the U.S., it should proceed forthwith to provide one or more vhf channels for at least those overshadowed communities which qualify as among the 100 largest markets in the country. Only thus can these cities be given a measure of the local service' which is already available to many smaller communities." * * * * Cox suggests that FCC should control all means of bringing TV to the public, and regulate them in such fashion as to promote local expression. Thus, he believes that services should be favored in the following descending scale of desirability: (1) Local stations. (2) Semi-satellites. (3) Satellites. (4) Boosters & translators. (5) CATV systems. None of the "lower forms" of TV, he says, should be permitted to frustrate development of any higher one. Each device has a useful role, Cox states, but role should be played according to clear-cut FCC rules. Up to now, he says, FCC policy has been "drift" and "confusion" [For details of Cox Report, see p. 5.] THE TASO REPORT-STATUS AND SUMMARY: Windup stage has been reached in industry's massive study of vhf & uhf TV service, through TV Allocations Study Organization (TASO). On Jan. 9, TASO board met in Washington to begin considering its draft of final report to be submitted to FCC. Bare start was made; next meeting is Jan. 24. Conclusion of report, drafted by exec, director Dr. George Town, compares vhf & uhf performance in terms meant to be intelligible to laymen. It goes directly to vhf -uhf contrasts, digesting engineers' elaborate findings as to the distances covered by each type of signal, vagaries within service areas and reasons therefore, prospects^ for improvement, performance of sets, antennas, transmission lines, etc. More precise figures on uhf's generally less extensive coverage, with definite exceptions, are given to aid FCC in its current allocations deliberations. The report hasn't been made public yet, but we've been made privy to its more important conclusions. Details are offered on p. 6, and they're subject to modification, of course. Here's basic summary: "Speaking very generally, the field surveys conducted by TASO showed that, near a TV transmitter, excellent service was provided by both uhf and vhf stations, but that as one went farther from the transmitter, uhf service deteriorated much 'more rapidly than did vhf service. In areas of adequately high signal strength, uhf provided both the best and the poorest pictures — the best primarily because of freedom from man-made electrical noise, and the poorest primarily because of greater deterioration of receiving installations. "One significant factor was noted over and over again in all sections of the country. This is that there is no such thing as a 'standard' receiving installation. Rather, as one goes farther and farther from a transmitter, one finds the quality of the receiver installations, and particularly the quality of the receiving antennas, improves so that the decrease in signal strength is to a considerable extent compensated. As one goes farther yet, a region is reached in which the signal strength is so low that only relatively poor pictures are obtained; and soon thereafter, it is found that no receivers are purchased. "This increase in quality of receiving installations with increasing distance