Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

— 3 — of the type reportedly being used in many communities. Both are called "vhf translators" — i.e., they receive on one vhf channel, rebroadcast on another. One is a 1 /3-watt unit made by MidAmerica Relay System Inc., 601 Main St., Rapid City, S. D. Other is a 1-watt device produced by Benco TV Assoc. Ltd., 27 Taber Rd., Rexdale, Ont., Can. Interestingly, latter firm has made a lot of equipment for community antenna systems— the mortal enemies of vhf boosters. There's little doubt FCC will approve boosters, in opinion of Colo. Gov. Steve McNichols, whom we reached in Denver this week. "I don't believe the Commission really understood the situation until Chairman Doerfer visited here," he said. "The FCC is now testing low-priced equipment in its laboratories and I believe they'll find that they'll do the job. If FCC's work isn't done by June 30, I'm sure it will extend the time for booster operators. "Booster operators will comply with new standards — to a man. If their operations would create interference, they just won't operate, and that would be that. Uhf translator signals just don't work in many areas. People in some places have invested a lot of money in them and found they didn't produce the signal in those canyons. I'm not against translators and CATV systems — if they work. "People don't realize the problem out here. There are some 600,000-1,000,000 viewers affected. They just aren't going to give up TV. They need it most of all. They weren't trying to thwart the FCC." OCDM SPECTRUM PLAN HEADS TOWARD SHELF: Eisenhower Administration went through expected motions this week to ask Congress to set up a White House commission on telecommunication management whose main job would be to untangle spectrum problems (Vol. 15:6-7,9). But it's unlikely that much more will be heard of it. Identical drafts of administration bills for 4-point study by 5-man commission were sent to Senate & House by Leo A. Hoegh, director of the Office of Civil & Defense Mobilization. They followed up identical letters from President to Vice President Nixon & Speaker Rayburn (D-Tex.), urging Congress to carry out plans recommended after a quickie review of field by President's Special Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. Likelihood of the bills becoming law is almost nil, however. There are hurdles in Senate — and a roadblock in House. Chairman Harris (D-Ark.) of House Commerce Committee, to which the Administration proposals were referred — routinely but ironically — wants no part of them. He is getting his own spectrum study under way, won't surrender jurisdiction to White House. In fact, last words on the commission idea may be spoken not in Congress but March 16 at Chicago convention of NAB, which helped stop legislation for a similar commission last year, fearing it would be dominated by the military. OCDM director Hoegh and Rep. Bray (R-Ind.), co-sponsor of last session's Potter resolution, are scheduled NAB speakers. • • • • For the record, however. Administration's commission would study: (1) Govt, "management of U.S. telecommunication resources." (2) "What changes, if any, should be made in the existing organizations or statutes." (3) Existing allocations to Govt. & other users. (4) Reallocations. As for FCC, it doesn't seem to care who makes a spectrum study — as long as one is made with competence. As one member put it to us this week: "It wouldn't hurt if both groups made a study. We'd get 2 points of view. One thing is sure: This split management of the spectrum isn't working out. It never did." WHO^S SO EXPENSIVE NOW? TV people who are weary of hearing how dreadfully expensive their medium is for advertisers compared with other media, will welcome, if only for the novelty, NBC marketing study No. 173, which demonstrates a sadly unheralded trend: in the past 3 years, the cost of "delivered circulation" in network TV has shown remarkable stability — while the major print media have become progressively more expensive. Only TV has succeeded in producing substantial circulation increases (34%), says the study, to match the cost increases (36%) which have been necessary. Newspaper cost rose 15% vs. a 2% circulation gain. And magazines rose 35% in cost vs. an 18% circulation gain. (These figures are all based on 1955-58 ANA & Nielsen reports. Compared units: 1000-line newspaper ads, b&w magazine single pages, and program & time charges for network Va-hour evening TV shows.)