Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1958)

SPECIAL REPORT continued last Wednesday to consummate their $600,000 purchase of KFBB-AM-TV Great Falls, Mont., from J. P. Wilkins, the Fairmont Corp. (newspaper publisher) and others. Their rejection of the transaction (the FCC approved the transfer of ownership on April 3) was due, it was learned, to the prospective establishment of a CATV operation in Great Falls. The looming Great Falls antenna system became public early in April when the Intermountain Microwave Co. filed an application to feed Spokane, Wash., tv signals to Great Falls. The application included an agreement with a group of Great Falls businessmen stating that they proposed to establish a community tv system and were agreeing to order the services of the common carrier for the Spokane tv signals. They agreed to prepay $36,000 to the carrier, with amortization at the rate of $1,000 a month for 36 months. The carrier proposed to charge its Great Falls CATV customer $5,700 per month for a three-channel service (there are three tv stations in Spokane). It also estimated that it would spend $131,000 for the 286-mile four-hop relay system. Echo on Madison Avenue The city of Tyler, Tex., is tied into a citywide CATV system whose influence has penetrated to Madison Avenue and Washington, D. C. KLTV (TV) Tyler has tackled the CATV regulatory problem head-on despite the FCC's recent disclaimer of jurisdiction of the wired systems. It aimed at a soft spot in the Commission's disclaimer by protesting a petition of the CATV to install microwave systems connecting four cities in the KLTV area. The protest points up the damage that CATV can do to a tv station by reciting KLTV's troubles with a major national advertiser— Whitehall Pharmacal Co. In Tyler the CATV system brings in Fort Worth, Dallas, Shreveport and KLTV. And that's why KLTV is hurt. A family seated in a Tyler living room with a CATV connection can get the NBCTV Jack Paar Show at four spots on the dial: ch. 5 WBAP-TV Fort Worth; ch. 3 KTBS-TV Shreveport, La.; KLTV converted to ch. 6 by the cable and — provided there is a switch and/or rabbit ear on the tv set — KLTV on its original ch. 7. But here's the catch, according to the KLTV protest: The cable's ch. 6 version of KLTV's ch. 7 signal is degraded in the process of converting it to ch. 6. Furthermore, the ch. 6 signal then proceeds to louse up the on-the-air ch. 7 KLTV signal by bleeding into it inside the receiving set. Either way, KLTV takes a cable beating, according to the brief, and its Tyler audience is reduced because people get the program from WBAP-TV (about 120 miles) or KTBS-TV (about 90 miles). KLTV's ch. 7 is converted on the cable to ch. 6 because most cable systems have trouble delivering signals above ch. 6. From ch. 7 up they peter out quickly and need a lot of expensive amplification. Growing pain: The Tyler CATV is one of the largest in the United States, and it wants to become larger by installing microwave relays that will improve and extend its service — to an estimated potential of 9,000 families in the city. Currently it has about 7,000 subscribers. An American Research Bureau survey shows a majority of Tyler tv homes getting their network programs on the cable, with only a small percentage of the cable audience tuned to KLTV. Network and spot advertisers are "aware that by purchasing stations in Dallas-Fort Worth and Shreveport, their message will reach large portions of the Tyler audience at no additional cost," KLTV's protest states. Take the case of Whitehall Laboratories. The KLTV protest includes a March 28, 1958, letter from R. G. Rettig, Whitehall vice president, that says the CATV at times accounts for up to 25% of the total available tv sets in Tyler. "We do not make any payment to the people who own the community antenna," Mr. Rettig wrote, "but we still pay you ihc full rate for the shows which we have on your station ... As you know, we have both network and spot television advertising on KLTV which is affected by this situation." And then this snapper: "Don't you think that you should review this situation and in some way compensate us with a rate change which will more truly reflect the coverage of your station? We are aware that this is a situation which has developed outside of your influence. Nevertheless, it exists and needs attention." That's language any broadcaster can understand. One regulatory point raised by KLTV hasn't had much official attention — the delivery by CATV systems of distorted station signals. FCC should not allow CATV systems to discriminate against local stations nor should it allow cables to duplicate from afar the programs carried locally by a tv station, broadcasters argue. They really see red — and red ink, too — when their signals are fuzzed up by CATV transmission facilities. Size and shape of CATV About 500,000 U. S. homes are receiving television service from wired hookups operated by community antenna systems — 1.2% of the total 42 million tv homes. This estimate is supplied by Edward P. Whitney, executive director of the National Community Television Assn., trade group comprising 301 system operators (some operate more than one system). Possibly another 300 non-members systems range from little clusters of connected homes to systems with several thousand outlets. The 600-odd systems do a total business of about $20 million a year. Two other methods provide tv service to homes lacking top-grade broadcast signals or any service at all: (1) Translators licensed by the FCC pick up signals from strategic elevations, convert them to the upper part of the uhf band and transmit a low-power uhf signal that can be received on sets equipped with uhf FREE TV NO MATCH FOR CATV There was always the feeling, among broadcasters particularly, that when local or nearby tv stations got on the air, the community antenna business would be dealt a death blow. This reasoning was based on the assumption that when viewers got tv signals free, off the air they would drop the monthly-payment antenna company contracts like hot rivets But it hasn't worked out that way at all. CATV entrepreneurs will tell you with a broad smile. They cite three examples: • In Burlington, Vt., the community system began in 1952. Late in 1954 ch. 3 WCAX-TV Burlington, with CBS affiliation, and ch. 5 WPTZ £TV) Pittsburgh, N. Y. (across Lake Champlain from Burlington), with NBC programs and a Grade A signal in Burlington, came on the air. Yet the community system has maintained its 3,000 subscribers. It brings its subscribers not only WCAXTV but also ch. 8 WMTW (TV) Poland Springs, Me. (Mt. Washington), with CBS and ABC; ch. 6 WRGB (TV) Schenectady, N. Y., with NBC and Canadian stations ch. 2 CBFT (TV) and ch. 6 CBMT (TV) both Montreal. • In Berlin, N. H., the antenna company began operating in 1954 in com petition with ch. 6 WCSH-TV Portland, Me., with NBC programs, which started December 1953, and ch. 13 WGAN-TV Portland, Me., the CBS station, which began in May 1954, and with ch. 8 WMTW Poland Springs, carrying CBS and ABC, which began in September 1954. The antenna system still maintains its 2,000 customers, providing in addition to WCSH-TV and WMTW ch. 7 WNAC-TV Boston, with CBS and ABC programs; ch. 3 WCAX-TV Burlington, with CBS affiliation, and the Frenchlanguage ch. 7 CHLT (TV) Sherbrooke, Canada — which specializes in covering the ice hockey matches that are so popular with the large French-Canadian population in that northern part of New Hampshire. • In Wenatchee, Wash., the antenna company brings to its 3,900 subscribers Spokane's three stations — ch. 2 KREMTV, with ABC; ch. 4 KXLY-TV, with CBS, and ch. 6 KHQ-TV, with NBC. Unlicensed boosters have been operating in the area bringing these same three Spokane stations to Wenatchee viewers, off the air, for free. Yet the landline community system has maintained its customers— although it lost several hundred initially when the boosters commenced operating. Page 36 • May 12, 1958 Broadcasting