Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

GOVERNMENT . . . FOR GIVING SOUTH BEND-ELKHART TELEVISION VIEWERS THE TYPE OF PROGRAMS THEY PREFER. THE TOP 26 NETWORK TV PROGRAMS IN THIS AREA ARE CBS SHOWS — WSBT-TV CARRIES THEM ALL, EXCLUSIVELY. :The television audience surveys of the South Bend Market all tell about the same story. WSBT-TV DOMINATES the market. The latest survey, made by the American Research Bureau (Nov., 1955) gives further proof. It reveals that in the South Bend-Elkhart market . . . • The top 26 network TV programs in this area are CBS shows — carried by WSBT-TV exclusively! • The 31 most popular TV programs, both local and network — (37 of the top 40, and 42 of the top-rated 50!) are carried by WSBT-TV. • During the prime evening viewing hours (6:00 to 10:30) almost 3 times as many people watch WSBT-TV as any other single station — the WSBT-TV audience is greater than the combined total of all other stations which can be seen in this area! • When the same program was carried bv all three local stations at the same time (President Eisenhower. Nov. 11), WSBT-TV enjoved a viewing audience 14 times greater than the next closest station. Get all the facts on WSBT-TV and its prosperous 14county coverage area. Learn more about this remarkable market where 95% of the TV homes are UHF equipped to receive WSBT-TV. Write for free market data book. FIVE TOP-RATED SHOWS OF EACH OF THE SOUTH BENDELKHART STATIONS— AND THE RATINGS OF EACH SHOW WSBT-TV STATION "A" STATION "B" Program Rating Program Rating Program Rating 1 . $64,000 Question 57.0 Lux Theatre 24.2 Pro Football 21.4 2. 1 Love Lucy 56.6 Hit Parade 23.5 Disney land 19.6 3. Ed Sullivan 51.8 Perry Como 20.2 Lawrence Welle 18.0 4. I've Got A Secret 48.1 Roy Rogers 18.1 Rin Tin Tin 13.7 S. Climax 47.9 George Gobel 18.0 Dollar A Second 10.9 SOUTH r BEND, WW mm 1 rij. \_, IND. CHANNEL CBS... A CBS BASIC OPTIONAL STATION ^^^WJ 34 ASK PAUL H. RAYMER COMPANY • NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES KPRC-TV Houston, Texas (ch. 2), opposes any lessening of mileage separations or reduction of tower heights which would degrade present tv service and substitute multiple urban service for rural service in many areas. Also WHAS-TV Louisville, Ky. (ch. 11). WTTV (TV) Bloomington, Ind. (ch. 10), asks that ch. 4 be assigned to Indianapolis-Bloomington or, if possible, to Indianapolis, as contemplated in CBS Plan I, which WTTV supports. WTTV recommends that higher antenna heights be permitted for vhf stations in Zone I and opposses any reduction in separation between stations which it believes would result in a loss of service in rural areas. WGAN-TV Portland, Me. (ch. 13) objected to comments by WTAO-TV Cambridge, Mass. (ch. 36), proposing to move ch. 13 to Cambridge. WFIL-TV Philadelphia (ch. 6) and WNBFTV Bingham ton, N. Y. (ch. 12) (Triangle Publications), opposed a proposal by WIP Philadelphia to "create a new tv ch. 6A and the reallocation of chs. 5 and 6 in more than eight cities, including Boston, New York, Schenectady, Philadelphia and Richmond." Triangle reasserted its opposition to increase of antenna heights and maximum powers in Zone I. KFBC-TV Cheyenne, Wyo. (ch. 5) (also permittee of KSTF [TV] Scottsbluff, Neb., on ch. 10), said only vhf is feasible in its Rocky Mountain area and opposed any deintermixture or vhf drop-ins. It approved satellite stations as a "first service" in an area and asked FCC consideration of applications for private intercity relays. KCSJ-TV Pueblo, Colo. (ch. 5), said only vhf service is feasible in its Rocky Mountain area and that it opposes any reduction of vhf service, both in allocations and quality. The station would support use of satellite stations, but only in areas not now receiving service from any regular tv station. KTTS-TV Springfield, Mo. (ch. 10), said it opposed disturbance of any existing service and that anyone proposing a change in the allocations plan should be required to submit data showing how the proposed plan affects existing service. WPRO-TV Providence, R. I. (ch. 12), adopts Dow, Lohnes & Albertson group filing opposing proposals for "Limited and Degraded Channel Utilization" (see above). WKY-TV Oklahoma City (ch. 4) and WSFATV Montgomery, Ala. (ch. 12), oppose all proposals which would reduce the maximum permissable antenna height and effective radiated power, minimum separation requirements or changes which would permit drop-in assignments at less than the minimum mileage seperation in their zones. Also WCAU-TV Philadelphia (ch. 10); WDEF-TV Chattanooga, Tenn. (ch. 12); KTVT (TV) Salt Lake City (ch. 4). WMAL-TV Washington, D. C. (ch. 7), opposes all suggestions . . . "which would have the present capacity or future potentiality of bringing about restrictions on existing areas of coverage provided for by present rules. . . ." Also WBIQ (TV) Birmingham, Ala., (ch. 13); WTIQ (TV) Munford, Ala., (ch. 7); WAIQ (TV) Andalusia, Ala., (ch. 2); WKTV (TV) Utica, N. Y., (ch. 13); KEYT (TV) Santa Barbara, Calif., (ch. 3); KFYR-TV Bismarck, N. D., (ch. 5); WMAR-TV Baltimore, Md., (ch. 2); KMOT-TV Minot, N. D., (ch. 10); WOAI-TV San Antonio, Tex., (ch. 4); KGHL-TV Billings, Mont., (ch. 8); WBAY-TV Green Bay, Wis., (ch. 2); WDMJ-TV Marquette, Mich., (ch. 6); WIBWTV Topeka, Kan., (ch. 13). WMUR-TV Manchester, N. H. (ch. 9), declares that the Commission should not take any Page 62 • February 13, 1956 Broadcasting Telecasting