Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1952)

2 do its best to advance uhf commercial operation," has spent, with parent RCA, more than $2, 500, 000 in uhf experimentation. $ * * * Heightened interest in uhf puts more and more pressure on FCC to settle soon the questions every applicant asks : How will hearings be handled in cities with vhf and uhf channels? Will it be "one pot" principle, with all applicants in one hearing and FCC determining which get vhf, which uhf? Or will it be "2 pot," vhf & uhf applicants handled separately? Applicants remain in dilemma, unable to plan strategy, until Commission provides answers. Matter of fact, some are now going to extreme trouble and cost of preparing both vhf and uhf applications, since FCC has delayed resolving problem. At Commission, they'd like to come up with solution to this and other procedural problems — before end of freeze, thus speeding post-freeze action on applications. They're trying to, don't know whether they can. There's no telling how FCC will jump on vhf -uhf question, though most betting is still that "one pot" arguments will prevail. Several commissioners say that they're awaiting staff analysis, but at least one says he's definitely for vhf -uhf separation unless he hears overwhelming argument against it. Mr. Cisler, in his letter to Broadcasting, plumps for separation, claiming well-heeled applicants can "law to death" smaller ones, while getting crack at uhf if they lose out in vhf. "The legal dodges and expenses involved in even AM radio today," he writes, "can surely wear out and break many a little fellow. Thus, control passes by default to the big money applicant." Communications Bar Assn, has forwarded to FCC number of members' additional comments on Assn.'s recommendations regarding post-freeze procedures (Vol. 7:48). Comments were relatively few, though some were vigorous dissents, so it's presumed majority approves recommendations. Of objections, most were directed at "one pot" principle, calling it illegal and/or impractical. *■ * * * Another question occupying FCC and applicants is matter of transmitter site. If 2 applicants in same city comply with FCC's minimum station-separation criteria, but one exceeds it by comfortable margin, is latter to receive automatic preference? FCC is expected to declare policy on this, too. Meanwhile, all that anyone at FCC will say is : "Safest thing to do is to pick a site that gives both you and your neighboring cities the largest interference-free service areas." Another procedural question: Which cities will be granted first? Chairman Coy testified to Senate Committee (Vol. 7:29) that non-TV cities would be first, onestation cities next, etc. But some at FCC wonder how far that principle should be carried. They point out that cities currently without TV could wind up with several stations on air years before present markets with 1 or 2 stations get added service. Ideal , they say, would be to have cities "come out even" in rate of station growth. BIG-SCALE TV FOR CANADA, CUBA, MEXICO: Here's latest and straightest dope we can get on station-building plans in Canada. Cuba & Mexico, where they use the same telecasting channels and standards as we do but aren't inhibited by any freeze. Many of the stations projected in those countries are important to prospective U.S. channel seekers because (1) every border channel they occupy must be protected by U.S. telecasters, i.e., spaced sufficiently to preclude interference, and (2) they're ordering most equipment from U.S. manufacturers at time when station equipment, with freeze soon to be lifted and grants to be made, may be in greater demand than supply due to materials shortages. Hone of our neighbors have as yet evinced any interest in uhf ; their relatively few big population centers are far enough apart so that they have enough vhf. Here's the TV situation in each country: CANADA : Canadian Broadcasting Corp.'s self-authorized Channel 9 station in Toronto & Channel 2 in Montreal , now building, are due to be completed this summer, the Dominion's first. Govt. -owned CBC shows no disposition to authorize any others, even though private interests are straining at leash to get into TV (Vol. 7:35,50).