Broadcasting Telecasting (July - Sept 1952)

SEPTEMBER 1, 1952 ADDITIONAL STATION GRANTS By LARRY CHRISTOPHER THREE MORE new station grants — two commercial and one educational— were issued by FCC last week, bringing total post-thaw grants to date to 35 commercial and 8 noncommercial educational authorizations. The Commission last week also notified 20 additional applicants that their bids are mutually exclusive with those of others, hence comparative hearing will be required. This brings to 132 the total number of applicants designated or notified for hearing. The construction permits for new stations were issued to: Peoria, III. — West Central Broadcasting Co. (WEEK), UHF Channel 43, effective radiated power 175 kw isual and 88 kw aural, antenna eight above average terrain 550 ft. South Bend, Ind. — South Bend Tribune (WSBT), UHF Channel 34, ERP 170 kw visual and 88 kw aural, antenna 540 ft. Los Angeles — U. of Southern California, Allen Hancock Fonndation, UHF Channel *28 (reserved), ERP 46 kw visual and 26 kw aural, antenna 2,910 ft. Applicants notified respecting comparative hearings included: South Bend, Ind. (Group A-2, No. 23) — South Bend Telecasting Corp. and South Bend Broadcasting Corp. (WHOT), both seeking UHF Channel 46, are being notified comparative hearing is necessary. Baton Rouge, La. (Group A-2, No. 19)— Tom Potter and Capital Television and Broadcasting Co., both seeking UHF Channel 40, notified re hearing. Montgomery, Ala. (Group A-2, No. 26) — Alabama Television Co. and Montgomery Broadcasting Co. (WSFA), both seeking VHF Channel 12, notified re hearing. Southern Enterprises and Southern Broadcasting Co. (WJJJ), both seeking UHF Channel 32, notified re hearing. Little Rock, Ark. (Group A-2, No. 27) — Arkansas Television Co. and Arkansas Radio and Equipment Co., both seeking VHF Channel 4, notified re hearing. Wrather, Hill & Alvarez and Arkansas Broadcasting Co. (KLRA), both seeking VHF Channel 11, notified re hearing. Corpus Christi, Tex. (Group A-2, No. 25)— Gulf Coast Broadcasting Co. (KRIS) and Baptist General Convention of Texas, both seeking VHF Channel 6, notified re hearing. Superior Television Co., Corpus Christi Television Co. and KEYS-TV Inc. (KEYS), all three seeking VHF Channel 10, notified re hearing. Coastal Bend Television Co. and H. L. Hunt, both seeking UHF Channel 22, notified re hearing. Evansville, Ind. (Group A-2, No. 17)— WFBM Inc. (WFBM), applicant for VHF Channel 7, notified it is mutually exclusive with bids of Evansville Television Inc., On the Air Inc. (WGBF) and South Central Broadcasting Corp. (WIKY), hence comparative hearing is required. Robert H. Swintz, general manager of CBS affiliate WSBT South Bend, reported all TV equipment was ordered months ago and has "high priority." He stated the newly granted TV outlet is expected to commence operation "within the year." Mr. Swintz indicated the tower for the TV antenna already is erected. Last week's actions brings tele CAN FCC lawfully exclude from consideration in its forthcoming TV hearings the comparison of populations — and in some cases, areas — which would receive service under the various applicants' proposals? This problem — which involves basic legal reasoning supporting the final allocation plan contained in the Sixth Report and Order [B*T, April 14] — emerged as Washington attorneys and Commission counsel exchanged views on Tuesday at the pre-hearing conference for the Portland, Ore., comparative hearings and recalled similar problems which arose a fortnight ago at the pre-hearing conference for the Canton, Ohio, case. The Portland and Canton cases have been scheduled by the Commission to commence Oct. 1 in Washington, as have the hearings for Waterbury, Conn., and Denver [B*T, Aug. 25]. Pre-hearing conference for the Waterbury case is scheduled Wednesday. Another legal point ' which has arisen is whether or not certain of the hearings, designated before the McFarland Act became effective, are legally constituted under the procedural provisions of the new law. Some attorneys feel the designations for hearing should vision processing in the Group A-2 priority list down to Little Rock (No. 27), a city whose population in the 1950 census was just above the 100,000 mark. Next on the list in Lincoln, Neb., under 100,000 population, where two pending applications are unopposed, KFOR for VHF Channel 10 and Cornhusker Radio and Television Corp. for VHF Channel 12. Following Lincoln is Jackson, Miss. (No. 29), where the only uncontested application pending is that of Mississippi Publishers Corp. for UHF Channel 25. WJDX and WSLI there both seek VHF Channel 12 and WRBC and WJQS both seek UHF Channel 47. No. 30 on the A-2 list is Madison, Wis., where Television of Wisconsin and WKOW both seek UHF be set aside and notices that hearings will be necessary, allowing 30 days for reply, should be issued as required by the new law. If this is not done, they contend, an unsuccessful applicant later may contest the proceeding in court and overthrow the case, thus putting to no avail the long time and effort spent in the hearing. Such a ruling also might set a precedent for similar cases, they note. Should Be Excluded FCC counsel indicated generally that comparative consideration of populations served should be excluded from the TV hearings because the Commission's rules and standards provide no method for determining specific service to people and the final allocation contained in the Sixth Report took care of equitable distribution of channels as set forth by Sec. 307(b) of the Communications Act. To exclude such consideration, however, constitutes radical departure from the long-established pattern by which standard broadcasting competitive cases have been decided, they admit. Counsel for broadcasters point out that the same situation occurred in the AM field in the early days and now, as then, data on popula Channel 27 and Bartell Broadcasters and WMFM (FM) both seek Channel 33. Both WISC and WIBA have filed for VHF Channel 3. However, there is pending before the Commission petitions to change the reservation of UHF Channel 21 to the sole VHF assignment, Channel 3, which would leave all three UHF assignments available for commercial use. Although the Commission for the second week did not act on pending applications in the Group B-l list, it has proceeded so far to Ashland, Ky. (No. 26) in that group, granting UHF Channel 59 there to Polan Industries [B*T, Aug. 18]. On the B-l list following Ashland is Massilon, Ohio (No. 27) where the sole applicant for UHF Channel ( Continued on page 7U ) tions and areas served can be presented through the testimony of expert witnesses (consulting en j gineers). It was noted that the consulting engineers in their early AM testimony developed the methods of measurement now contained in the AM rules and standards. } Perhaps the same would take place I in TV, they contend. Some industry attorneys argue ji the exclusion of such data from 1 the hearings is merely a move by \ the Commission for administrative 1 convenience — to keep the proceed I ings free of highly technical and I controversial evidence. Others point out that once FCC t begins to consider data on service !i to populations and areas, includ j; ing signal shadow effects and inter I ference, the way will be opened ij; eventually to break down the fixed t allocation plan. This would occur | when an applicant sought to waive I the plan or its minimum separa j tions in order to add a channel to a community on grounds no inter (j ference (or relatively slight harm) would occur to other established II stations and a large number of people would gain a new service, it was explained. Another possibility, they note, (Continued on page 70) September 1, 1952 • Page 57 f ' BROADCASTING • Telecasting HEARING PROBLEMS ^ Are c°"^ed