Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1958)

4 mixture. Albany is what took the wind out of my sails. [FCC made that area all-vhf instead of proposed all-uhf.] I think the only immediate answer is deintermixture. " Comr. Ford's position; "Partial deintermixture didn't work. The present 12 vhf channels aren't enough. We should seek a solution to make use of the uhf. I'm not ready to concede that uhf should be aban'doned. Maybe I will, but I don't believe it now. My opinion is that technical data will show lohf works well." Neither Comr. Lee nor new Comr. Cross offered comment. Uhf telecasters' Committee for Competitive TV was represented by Wm. Putnam, who heads highly successful WWLP, Springfield, Mass., and exec, director Wallace Bradley. A director of TASO, Putnam said TASO is an engineering group but has been assigned a "political" problem. He insisted TASO is merely going to find that signal goes further with more power, shadows more at higher frequencies, has more man-made interference at lower frequencies. "The uhf is perfectly satisfactory for broadcasting," he said. "It has no technical deficiencies and many advantages." Bradley urged elimination of TV-receiver excise tax, said it would promote production of all-channel vhf-uhf sets, « « « « We can't tell you where the foregoing leaves allocations, frankly. FCC has before it a formal motion to start taking a new look right now (Vol. 14:20). There is substantial sentiment for more de intermixture. But, there's also strong belief Commission shouldn't act without TASO's forthcoming data, due by year's end. Senate Commerce Committee is impatient with the Commission, obviously, but it's difficult to see it producing new laws to "do something" in such a complex matter. Attendance by Senators was light indeed. For most of hearing, only one or 2 were on hand. Sen. Lausche (D-0.) was acting chairman during allocations portion of hearing. The Senators asked few questions. Committee counsel Kenneth Cox, who handled similar hearing 2 years ago, did most of probing — showed good grasp of overall problem and of specific allocations actions. Arbitrate TV Economics? “Economic impact” question, as old as broadcasting itself, remains nub of FCC’s problems concerning success or failure of small TV stations faced with competition from community antenna systems, translators, illegal boosters, satellites, etc. During this week’s hearings on subject by Senate Commerce Committee, FCC Chairman Doerfer focused on question time and again — something he has done consistently. “My main problem is this,” he testified. “Congress intended to practically ignore the economics question. Our primary job is to prevent interference. I’d like Congress to consider ‘economic impact.’ Our function is to supply Congress with the facts and let it appraise the philosophy of the Communications Act.” Small-town telecasters made substantial impression on the few Senators who attended sessions, but CATV system operators haven’t been at bat yet. They’re due at date to be scheduled later, probably June 9 or June 23. Hearing on networks interrupts, starts June 3. ♦ * * ❖ Theme of telecasters was that CATV and translators are forcing off air local TV stations — substituting for grass-roots programming the output of “Hollywood and N. Y., the movie capital and Tin Pan Alley.” Prime initial objective is to stop CATV systems from using microwaves to bring variety of big-city signals into local markets, cutting “heart” out of stations’ coverage. They’d like to see CATV and translators “regulated” out of the way entirely. They’ve achieved some success so far, in that FCC is now delaying action on pending microwave applications which would feed CATV systems. But it hasn’t touched operating microwaves. Senators were also impressed with testimony of exSen. Edwin C. Johnson, former chairman of their committee, who plumped for legitimization of illegal boosters. As Governor of Colo., he “granted” them. He testified that they don’t bring interference, but could; therefore, FCC should control them. He said that uhf translators give excellent service but are too costly. He pushed for regulation of CATV systems, said States would have to step in if FCC continues delay. From questions propounded by Committee counsel Kenneth Cox, it seems that he, for one, wouldn’t object to CATV systems filling in service in “normal” coverage areas of stations, but does oppose extension beyond — same for translators. It’s good guess this reflects views of Chairman Magnuson (D-Wash.). NAB’s testimony, through mgr. of govt, relations Vincent T. Wasilewski, was similar — plus assertion that CATV systems are “pirating” copyrighted material. * * * * National Community TV Assn, didn’t get on stand, but its witnesses’ prepared statements defend their operations on “public interest” and legal grounds. Milton Shapp. pres, of Jerrold Electronics Corp., operator of 9 systems and manufacturer of CATV equipment, insisted that no TV station has gone off air because of CATV competition. He analyzed all stations that have gone dark, said only 6 operated in cities with CATV systems. In each of