Broadcasting Telecasting (Jul-Sep 1953)

editorials TV Allocations: They're Legal IT NOW may be recorded that the FCC has the legal right to establish nation-wide allocation tables, wherein specific facilities are assigned, geographically, to specific localities. This was done in both FM and TV. In AM it was — and is — different. It's catchas-catch-can. An applicant applies for any facility that may work in any given area in compliance with engineering standards. The "planned allocation" has been subjected to frequent attack ever since it was first projected in FM in the late '30s. Many broadcasters in AM thought the FCC was forcing FM down their throats by saying, in eff'ect, "Apply now for one of the FM assignments in your community, or you won't have the chance later." When the FCC proposed the same format for TV in the 1945 original channel-by-channel allocation table, there was the same criticism, even in the FCC itself. The argument of the opponents was that the law of supply and demand should control. But the FCC majority decreed otherwise. Until Aug. 3 there had been no clear-cut court test. On that date the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in deciding an appeal in the so-called "Lancaster cases," sustained the FCC's right to set up geographical allocations, and to change them. Peoples Broadcasting Co. (WLAN), after several rebuffs from the FCC, went to court to protest the FCC action moving pioneer WGAL-TV from Ch. 4 to Ch. 8. The three judges agreed that the FCC has the right to establish an allocations table, and held it was correct in its Lancaster action. This appears to settle several other cases attacking channel-by-channel allocation tables. The court's action does not, however, preclude a return to a method of allocating facilities based on need for service in given areas. It's ludicrous to suppose that the Government will allow assignments now allocated to communities which can't conceivably support TV stations to lie fallow indefinitely. Indeed, the time may be approaching when a change in procedure will be in order. Into this category are destined to fall many of the channel assignments now "reserved" for non-commercial educational stations. To date only 48 applications for educational stations have been filed, as against 245 "reservations." Most of these 48 haven't been prosecuted, and the FCC is much more lenient with them than with commercial applicants. There have been just 20 educational grants (some with practically no financial showing). One station has begun operation since last year's freeze lift. But the educational reservations have become a political issue, stirred up by emotions. It will take time to bring all concerned, starry-eyed pedagogues included, to their senses. Credit Rating: Low there's no doubt that it takes a lot of people to produce a television show, and to prove it you need only look at the list of credits that unrolls upon your screen at the conclusion of almost any program on the air. Members of the cast, producer, supervising producer, director, assistant director, technical director, audio and video chiefs, music director, choreographer — and sometimes others who had a hand in the show — are carefully identified, especially if the other parts of the program have run short. The technique of naming everybody in the company who earned more than a stagehand's wage has been borrowed by TV from the movies. Most movie credits run at the beginning of a show and hence may serve a useful purpose in giving the audience time to quit rustling its popcorn bags before the actual show starts. No similar need exists in TV. We can understand the desire of production people to be accorded mention on the screen. It is their way of acquiring a reputation. We hope, however, that a way will be found to satisfy that objective at less expense of valuable air time. A minute out of a half-hour network show is worth several thousand dollars. We've seen credit lists run longer than a minute. Page 138 • August 17, 1953 Drawn for Broadcasting • Telecasting by Sid Hi: "On radio we only had to bark for it, but now m'c have TO eai the damn stuff!" Are Ethics Unethical? THE Dept. of lustice is investigating whether a rate clause in thf. standard contract form endorsed by the American Assn. of Adver tising Agencies and the NARTB violates the anti-trust laws. A first reported by this publication a fortnight ago, the investigatioi : is into the recommendation that a station charge all advertisers alikl for like time. | We don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the anti-trus laws. For all we know the Dept. of Justice may find grounds fo;, action. But if the laws can be interpreted as prohibiting the AAA^I and NARTB from trying to keep their businesses on a decen t ethical plane, the laws should be scuttled. The clause under the department's scrutiny guarantees that : station give one advertiser the best rate given any other for "liki broadcasts." It is nothing more or less than a promise to refraii from the deplorable practice of rate-cutting. Use of the standard contract form of which this clause is a par is not a condition of membership in either association. Neithe: does the form make any effort to establish the rates of any station It merely suggests that a station should be consistent in whateve: charges it sets. How this sort of contract could be interpreted as "collusion,' the crime which the Dept. of Justice seems to suspect, is difficul for us to understand. Since when is it a crime to suggest tha business be conducted ethically? Stock in Wrong Trade THE brokerage house of E. F. Hutton & Co. has issued a repor saying that movie stocks are now selling at bargain prices anc stand a good chance of rising in value. As one reason for it; optimism regarding movie securities Hutton cites "the declinini novelty of TV." We don't profess to know anything about the stock market, bu we do know enough about TV research to be concerned over th( financial welfare of E. F. Hutton clients who accept the com pany's advice. If price advances in movie stocks depend upon ; declining interest in television, it will be a long time before ai investor can count a profit. No business growth in U. S. history has been more spectacul^ than that of television, and its expansion is only beginning. Thi records show that after years of exposure to TV people watch i almost as much as they did when it was first available to them The novelty of television may indeed have worn off, but the habi hasn't. Broadcasting • Telecastini