We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
lower band, as have the other networks (Sept. 29 issue).
As of Thursday, only three appearances for the hearing next Thursday had been filed with FCC — these from TEA, NBC and NAB.
tea stated that though it was not in accord with all aspects of FCC proposals, it had data to help better utilize the FCC allocations formula. This may require further engineering conferences. NAB and NBC promised to file briefs, as presumably will CBS and others before the Oct. 8 deadline.
The FCC, in putting out a corrected and revised table of proposed TV channel allocations (see Supplement No. 10 herewith), apparently swung back to a prior TBA recommendation. But the channels are spread more thinly than proposed by TBA to meet requirements of Sec. 307(b) of the Communications Act relating to equitable distribution of broadcast facilities by States.
Though Commission's release with its corrected table refers to "typographical errors," these aren't nearly so n\imerous as changes of mind about where channels should go. Among major cities, for example, the new table shows Boston reduced by 2 channels to a net of 3 ; San Francisco given an additional channel to
make it 6 .
There's no question that opposition will be strong at hearing against channel-sharing, unsuccessful in AM, and against the 6-hours-a-day minimum schedule. Argument against latter proposal in rules is that concentration on quality programming could be exerted better if minimum is cut to 2 or 3 hours per day, and then increased gradually as art progresses. Little fellow especially would have tough going, it is said.
One variation of channel-sharing suggested is f acilit ies-sharing. Instead of each TV licensee investing in whole cost of installation, 3 or 4 might band too-ether to put up capital pro rata and share transmitter, studios etc. But they would still have to share channels.
m TI3S m FRONT: Compared to the stormy seas of television, FM waters are rela
tively serene. Except for objections of NBC and CBS to their New York assignments (Supplement No. 4), FM licensees and CP holders are apparently concentrating on meeting changeover deadlines of Dec. 1 for testing, Jan. 1 for programming.
Meanwhile, as of Oct. 4, total of new FM applications reached 532. and they're still pouring in — mostly from AM operators, many from large and small newspapers not now in radio. (We'll have the full log of applicants with detailed data, on which we have had staff working for 5 weeks, ready for you within a few
weeks. )
Only major FM news this week centered around network protest hearing, set for Oct. 15, and FCC reaction to FMBI statement of last week demanding more channels
for FM.
Both networks protest principle of inequality in assignments in New York. NBC's WEAF-FM coverage, it claims, would be only 4,800 sq. mi. against best nonnetwork assignee's 7,200 sq. mi. CBS says its WABC-FM service area would be but 62% of that by best non-network competitor, adding: what about formation of new FM networks which then would have access to superior New York key than those of old-line
networks?
At hearing both networks have been placed on spot by FCC s request that they suggest alternative allocations not only for themselves but for the other 7 allocees in New York.
As to FMBI demand. FCC is sitting tight. Concensus within its staff is