Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

2 JANUARY 11, 1960 "(c) The new vhf service would not have substantial adverse effect on established uhf TV services. "(d) A new assignment would not require an excessive number of channel changes of existing stations." Coupled with the foregoing policy suggestions was a series of proposed engineering changes, designed primarily to enable those proposing drop-ins to calculate protection to existing stations. FCC said dropins must not create any more interference to existing stations than would new stations located at the minimum spacing now specified in the standards. Drop-ins would have to reduce power or height, or both, or use directional antennas — which could employ 20 db suppression. One of most controversial criteria is "(c)" above. Many uhf operators were just biding time imtil they might apply for a short-spaced vhf drop-in. The criteria would prohibit that — but comments to come could change FCC's mind. Engineering standards proposed by FCC are designed to intensify signal in urban areas. FCC & many others have long believed it a mistake to allocate channels way out of town. Another proposal was to reduce adjacent-channel spacing from 60 to 40 miles because interference is believed to be less than anticipated. No changes in uhf standards are proposed. Comrs. Bartley & Lee dissented on grounds that proposal is premature & prejudicial. They said: "Addition of vhf assignments at reduced mileage separations will [in our judgment] , substantially prejudice any long-range program other than an all-vhf system. "This step is being taken at a time when the majority believes that within the next few weeks we will know whether or not an expanded vhf system is feasible eventually. "If an expanded vhf system is feasible eventually, the first areas which should be provided for are those areas without vhf service, then those with a single vhf service, and so on. "If an expanded vhf system is not feasible eventually, the interim plan should mesh with the longrange plan and it may well be that a more vigorous program of deintermixture toward uhf markets is the only such solution." They were referring to the FCC-OCDM discussions about possibility of releasing military vhf spectrum for TV use. Ford is Commission's representative and he's expected to report within 3 to 4 weeks. (For technical details of FCC's proposal, see p. 4.) HOT & COLD REACTIONS TO ROGERS REPORT: Attorney General William Rogers* report on broadcasting to President Eisenhower elicited responses from the govt, bodies most concerned — Congress, FCC & FTC — much as was foreshadowed by previous statements from spokesmen for these bodies. Rogers said FCC & FTC have adequate powers to handle most problems but they haven't exercised them. He did recommend 2 new laws for now: (1) Make it a criminal offense for a station employe, as well as the station, to accept payments for programs without identifying the payer. (2) Give FCC power to impose punishment lighter than license revocation — such as "suspension or conditional renewal." Then, he said, if firmer govt, regulation & greater industry self-discipline prove inadequate, FCC should be given regulatory power over networks, and FTC should be given authority to obtain injunctions to stop immediately false advertising or deceptive trade practices, pending outcome of litigation. As law stands now, FTC can get injunctions covering only "food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics." In sharp language, Rogers told FTC & FCC how they might better use their existing powers. Particularly, he said, FCC can do a lot more about programming without worrying about censorship. (For his recommendations, see p. 5.) Rep. Harris (D-Ark.) doesn't believe Rogers goes far enough in trying to curb payola, quiz-rigging and the like. He said his subcommittee will soon recommend law covering not only station employes but everyone concerned— "whether it be sponsors, advertising 'agencies, producers or anyone." He also agreed with Rogers that FCC & FTC haven't used all their existing authority. FCC Chmn. Doerfer said he has no quarrel with legislation suggested by Rogers, but he differs vigorously with his assertion that Commission can exert greater control over programming without engaging in censorship. "We'll have the opinions of other lawyers," he said. Doerfer has support, apparently getting stronger, from Comr. Cross, will get more when Comr. Craven returns. For example. Cross became incensed