Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1952)

2 of February, that there would then be 60-90 days for applications, then processing, then hearings, finally CPs and actual construction. Applied to Tampa, said WFLA manager George Harvey, this means telecasting might begin in fall of 1955. That's as good guess as any for any good market area in which there inevitably will be more applications than there are channels. * ❖ * * Commission has limited manpower, must decide its most equitable deployment. It has plenty of other tasks. In TV, the big question runs something like this: Assuming first objective is to give TV to people now without service, what is quickest and fairest method? Suppose an existing station, through power increase, could serve an additional 100,000 people in mere few weeks or months after freeze. And suppose a new station in new area could serve equal number but must go through hearing first, or needs 6-12 months to build even if grant could be obtained without hearing. Which application should be processed first? Or should the 2 kinds of applications be mixed in specified proportions? Estimate by RTMA task force (Vol. 8:6), that 150 CPs for new stations and 10 CPs for power increases would be granted this year, is sheer conjecture — though former are possible in terms of smaller, non-contested areas. Another question: Should Commission devote full time to getting service to non-TV areas — ignoring present one-or-2-station areas indefinitely, even if it takes years? And most provocative question of all: Will hearings lump all applications together, or should they take them up channel-by-channel? Choice may determine speed with which grants can be made. Such subjects occupy full time of several FCC staff members, but Commission itself hasn't taken them up — probably won't until everything else is nailed down. Final decision will be "one package deal" ; at least, that's the present FCC intention. Plan is to release one document that will tell everything — what to apply for, where, when, how. We'll publish it when released (Vol. 8:6). Commission's budget will have strong bearing on processing procedures. If Congress grants $200,000 extra requested for broadcast activities (Vol. 8:4), 3-4 examiners will be added to present 7, and TV staff will be bolstered. Coy appeared before House appropriations subcommittee Feb. 13, is said to have received favorable reception. But there's many a slip between testimony and final appropriation. Committee's report is due sometime in April, final Congressional vote during summer. RCA SEMINAR — SHORT COURSE IN UHF: Riding end-of-freeze spirit in the Washington air, and mindful of chary attitude towards uhf, RCA this week uncorked dual pitch for TV transmission to 200-300 consulting engineers and attorneys attending Statler Hotel seminar — offering both vhf & uhf data and equipment but accenting uhf transmission and reception. [For RCA receiver/converter plans, see p. 10.] Rest of transmitter makers — DuMont, Federal, GE (and Westinghouse in uhf) are also stepping up campaigns. Competition will be stiff at NARTB convention in Chicago, March 29-April 2, when all will strut their stuff. Uhf propagation expert Dr. George Brown led off with summary of knowns and unknowns of uhf coverage. Net effect of his report: the flatter the terrain, the higher the power, the lower the frequency — the better the service. He didn't try to gloss over uhf's disadvantages, pointing out, for example, that signal drops to almost nothing close behind high hills. Experiments with antenna "tilting" (Vol. 7:19) and "beam-shaping", to improve service, were also reported. Dr. Brown illustrated how tilting beam down one or 2 degrees effects tremendous improvement in service for heavily populated areas, though signal drops in periphery. He intimated practice should be given serious consideration, at least until very high powers are available — particularly since it permits use of higher powers while reducing tropospheric interference. Among unknowns in uhf propagation, Dr. Brown said, is the effect of antenna height on coverage. He found little correlation when comparing different heights used in Washington, New York and Bridgeport experiments. To resolve height questions, RCA is planning to transmit from new site "in