Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1954)

2 FCC 'BUYS' LOW-POWERED SATELLITE IDEA: c oncept of tiny TV satellites for hamlets too small to support regular stations, long under discussion at the FCC (Vol. 10:23), has been definitely accepted by Commission. With issuance of broad, general rulemaking proposal this week (Notice 54-1542, Docket No. 11237) it invited industry comments by Feb. 25, asking for ideas on just how satellites should be authorized. Commission's basic proposal is to permit stations in cities under 50,000 to operate on channels in allocation plan, both vhf & uhf, with minimum of 100 watts ERF, no minimum antenna height — provided minimum signal over principal city to be served is maintained same as now specified in rules. The present minimum for cities under 50,000 is 1-kw at 300-ft. above average terrain. Proposal says nothing about boosters — i.e., stations to operate on same channel as originating station. This is separate matter, still under study. FCC makes it clear that proposal is wide open, that it has formed few conclusions, but that it favors basic concept. It asked for comments on hov/ stations may be programmed, on technical standards, costs of construction and operation, multiple ownership, location of proposed stations, whether they should be permitted to compete with existing stations, etc. Commission keyed its proposal to Sylvania's carefully thought out petition (Vol. 9:38), accepting its fundamental premise and inviting more discussion of the methods of implementation advanced by Sylvania. Satellites could be built for $I5,000-$20,000 and can be operated very economically, perhaps by remote control, according to Sylvania. As for ownership, Sylvania would apply same rules as for regular stations. Furthermore, Sylvania would stipulate that satellite would have to give way to regular station, if one were established in town, or become regular station itself. Comr. Hennock dissented, saying she feared monopoly and stifling of uhf and insisting that answer to small-town TV is access to network programs. Though proposal says nothing about boosters, successful experiments such as those conducted in Waterbury, Conn, by Ben Adler (see p. 9) are increasing possibility that their commercialization will be proposed too. Biggest economic problem for satellites may prove to be cost of getting signals to them — though out-of-the-air pickups may be adequate in many cases. GOVT. BOARD OPPOSES HIGH TOWER BAN: Virtual assurance against any arbitrary ban on towers over 1000 ft. was given TV industry this week by technical div. of President's Air Coordinating Committee when it refused to approve ACC Airspace Subcommittee's recent proposal to bar virtually all such towers as flying hazards (Vol. 10:48-50). Technical group was split right down the middle on proposal — military representatives in favor, civilians opposed — so it referred whole question to the Cabinet-level Air Coordinating Committee for further consideration. While "top ACC" can still completely endorse or reject the proposal, it's more likely to request further study, possibly by joint TV-aviat ion-govt, group. Immediate result of this week's action is that Airspace Subcommittee will continue to follow past practice of considering high-tower proposals on case-to-case basis — until and unless definite action is taken by top ACC. Function of technical div. is to make recommendations to top ACC — which it can do only by unanimous vote. It's headed by CAA administrator F.B. Lee, with CAB, Navy, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, State Dept, and FCC also represented. The FCC representative, aviation div. chief John Evans, generally refrains from voting on such issues. Group heard 6 TV industry spokesmen and one aviation representative before it went into closed session and refused to affirm the ban. Though voting line-up was not announced, it was learned that during closed discussion the military representatives plumped for the Airspace Subcommittee's ban on high towers, while civil members — CAA, CAB, State Dept., FCC — argued against. Compromise proposal was offered by civil members — establishment of a new TV-aviarion-govt . committee to study question and determine whether new tower criteria are needed, similar to 1952 group which agreed present standards are adequate