Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

Jerrold Bid Returned APPLICATION for FCC authorization of tv translator operation at Ellensburg, Wash., submitted by Jerrold Electronics Corp., was returned to the electronics firm last week. The FCC termed the application "defective." The Commission noted that Jerrold, in seeking booster authority, used the application form for recognized broadcast operations, whereas the FCC rules do not provide for boosters. Jerrold was premature, the FCC intimated, in seeking booster authority by the waiver of numerous FCC rules before final determination of rule-making proceedings concerned. FCC Gets Comments On Tv Translators A LEADING community tv equipment manufacturer has asked the FCC to give antenna services a four-year "grace period" before "subjecting" them to competition from tv translators. That request, from Spencer-Kennedy Labs, Boston, Mass., was among comments filed with the Commission by last Thursday, deadline for comments on suggested rule-making involving the authorization of low-power tv translator service using the upper portion of the uhf band (chs. 70-83). The comments received last week were practically unanimous in indorsement of the proposal to authorize translators, but most contained qualifications or modifications. Earlier comments, including Jerrold Electronic Corp.'s translator-coaxial cable proposal, also were heavily in favor of translator operations [B»T, March 12]. Spencer-Kennedy's "grace period" would pertain to communities which by March 1, 1956, had in operation — or a permit had been authorized to put into operation — a system providing tv service by wire. In these localities no translator operation would be permitted before March 1, 1960. To protect the public investment, S-K proposes that prospective translator licensees be approved by the governing body of the community to be served, and that the licensees deposit in escrow a sum sufficient to assure their five-year operation. Other translator comments follow: National Community Tv Assn., Washington, D. C, while emphasizing that community an tenna systems provide and will continue to provide valuable and much needed service, acknowledges that translators may be of value in areas not economically practicable for community antenna projects. It cautions, however, against relaxing broadcasting's sound technical and economic principles in making new service available. Washington State Tv Reflector Assn., which brings tv signals to north-central Washington via on-channel booster reflectors, claims its method of re-transmission is best; suggests authorization of vhf, rather than uhf, translators. When and if it appears that neither the on-channel nor vhf translator method can provide saturation service, uhf translators might be the answer in unserviced areas. K-V Electronics Inc., Ellenville, N. Y., manufacturer of community tv equipment, reports itself "positively" opposed to uhf translators; argues that vhf on-channel re-radiating devices are most feasible, most economical. Sylvania Electric Products Inc. favors adoption of translator proposals with certain modifications. Would restrict harmonics and other spurious radiation to not more than 60 db below the peak visual carrier; suggests a frequency tolerance of .01%; calls hourly observations "too burdensome." CBS urges adoption of translator proposals, with qualifications; believes rules should make clear translators may be used to provide service to "shadow" areas (those areas within coverage of existing stations but precluded from service because of terrain or interference factors). As translators should only be licensed where there is a genuine need, CBS recommends doling out licenses on a case-by-case basis. Agrees that signals should not be rebroadcast without the consent of the originating station, but feels case-by-case consideration must be given rebroadcast of programs requiring station and network clearance and involving questions of overlap and payment. NBC supports objective of translator proposals as an economical and simplified method of providing tv to areas inadequately served, and as long as no signals will be retransmitted without approval of originating station. Radio Electronics Television Manufacturers Assn. supports the utilization of uhf for translator stations with several technical revisions, including: (1) no minimum space requirements for co-channel stations; (2) not limiting licensees to one translator in a service area, and (3) remote control operation of translator units. Adler Electronics Inc., New Rochelle, N. Y., communications equipment manufacturer, supports RETMA comments favoring utilization of uhf for translator operations and cites its own experimentation in this field. Believes enough data has been accumulated to begin manufacture of needed equipment, although price is expected to exceed $1,000 figure mentioned in notice of proposed rule-making. WSM-TV Nashville, Tenn., recommends all uhf channels allocated to tv be made available for translator operations. Also proposes 100watt rather than 10-watt operation, with hours of operation in keeping with requirements of standard tv broadcast stations. KFXJ-TV Grand Junction, Colo. (ch. 5), found "a great deal of merit" in the translator proposal, but found it in some respects "too rigid." Rather than limiting translator operations to the 70+ uhf frequencies, KFXJ-TV proposed using any frequency assigned to tv that would not cause interference or engineering problems. KFXJ-TV also recommended: allowing translators to operate at any distance from the originating station, when there is a demonstrated need for service; unattended operation of translators so long as adequate protection is provided; waiver of hours of monitoring by commercial grade operator in cases where station assumes responsibility; allowing the originating station to assume responsibility for rebroadcast of its ID. KVDO-TV Corpus Christi, Tex. (ch. 22), favors proposal but raises questions regarding the future of uhf. Asks clarification of allocations question so uhf stations can make use of translators to extend their service. Citizens of Flathead Valley, Mont., favor translator proposal but are against 10-watt power limit. In locations such as Flathead Valley (population spread over wide area), 10 watts is not enough and more than one translator is impracticable, citizens say. Recommend at least 60 watts for translator operation. PULSE ? Real strong in WOWO's 4,000,000 Market Between In the latest Pulse, covering 26 of WOWO's 82 county area, WOWO has 472 firsts out of 472 quarter hours surveyed — proof that in homes, factories and on the farms, WOWO commands a constant loyal audience not covered by any other single medium. In 109 quarter hours WOWO not only held its audience, but gained from one to three points over a year ago. That's listener loyalty. Radio listening itself is up in this typical midwest area — up from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday thru Friday (actually up 2.6 at night) — up all thru the week end from Saturday noon 'til Sunday night. Mind you, WOWO's area is far bigger than the Pulse area surveyed. WOWO blankets a region of 4 million people and $6 billion spendable income. It is the Market Between — half again richer than Detroit, yet with no city bigger than Fort Wayne. Get facts, figures, availabilities. Call Tom Longsworth, Sales Manager, Anthony 2136 in Fort Wayne, or Alexander W. "Bink" Dannenbaum, Jr., WBC National Sales Manager, MUrray Hill 7-0808, New York. WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. RADIO TELEVISION BOSTON — WBZ+WBZA BOSTON — WBZ-TV -«*«■ PITTSBURGH — KDKA CLEVELAND — KYW FORT WAYNE — WOWO PORTLAND— KEX PITTSBURGH— KDKA-TV CLEVELAND — KYW-TV SAN FRANCISCO — KPIX KPIX REPRESENTED BY THE KATZ AGENCY. INC. ALL OTHER WBC STATIONS REPRESENTED BY PETERS. GRIFFIN. Woodward, inc. In the Market between-No selling campaign is complete without the WBC station WOWO-50,000 watts Page 76 • March 19, 1956 Broadcasting • Telecasting