Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

STILL MOBS BBO? TV, AMD WHY: From what we gather from both principals and counsel, it's not only CBS's uhf color campaign and the huge costs involved in TV but also the temper of the times — building bans, labor problems, and now the newest Petrillo edict against films - that accounts for the wave of withdrawals of TV applications which we have been reporting weekly. This is borne out, too, by fact that Y/ith few exceptions even those who say they've been "converted" to color haven't yet applied for uhf experimental frequencies. In effect, they intend to "sit television out," let the big boys like RCA-NBC, Duliont aiid Paramount carry the ball for the time being, ; This week a half dozen more applications were withdrawn — and, on top of * these, Milv/aukee Journal, holder of a CP for TV since prewar, dropped its CP , Stating it v/ould apply for uhf instead. The latest dropouts were: Fox V.'est Coast Theatres Corp. , and Consolidated Broadcasting Corp., for Los Angeles; A. Frank Katzentine, for Miami Beach; St. Louis Globe-Democrat and Thomas Patrick Inc., for St. Louis; Twentieth Century-Fox Corp., for New York (see Part III, Supplement , No. 18). These withdrawals make it all the more likely there will be fev/ hearings : on TV applications since there are no cities left except Nev/ York, Philadelphia, i Los Angeles, San Francisco where supply of channels is under demand (Vol. 2, No. 17). I V t In fact, Baltimore hearing scheduled next Monday has been "continued" v;ith 1 out date (3 applicants for 3 channels) as was April 25 Pittsburgh hearing (2 for j 4). Harrisburg TV hearing is still set for May 16 but there are nov/ no applicants j from that city. Three applicants for Baltimore have dropped out, but there are j Still 3 for 3; in addition to Hearst and Baltimore Sun, a newcomer filed this v/eek .• — Radio-Television of Baltimore Inc. Its application states it will spend |242,00( J on installation, $20,000 per month on operation, has proposed tieup with Johns Hopkins, plans AM and FM also. Its principals are Ben and Herman Cohen, owners of | local men's store and real estate; Sam Carliner and Herbert Levy, attorneys; Frederick L. Allman, V/ar Dept, radio engineer who owns WSVA, Harrisonburg, Va. | MAIZES P0^IT*02I CLEAR: in addition to stating unequivocally that his ban oi ' AI/I-FM duplication stands, AFM President Petrillo deals TV a paralyzing blov; by his | edict that Musicians Union members "shall not play for television in any form until j further notice." He implements his no-f ilm-f or-TV agreement v/ith film producers in | article in International Musician, union house organ, w'hich dispels hope indefi ' nitely for lifting ban on "live" video music in effect since February, 1945, His | ytion on FM may be tested in light of Lea Bill, but as respects TV it hits the chi i same as if records and transcriptions were barred from radio. On his film agreement, the New York Times commented editorially Thursday: "This was just as if the < International Ladies Garment Workers Union had passed a resolution that suits can i not be v/orn by red-headed women." On FM, Petrillo states "we cannot permit the services of our members for both types of transmitters for one fee." He reasons: "The Federation was in a just i position all the time, because FM employs separate announcers and engineers to do FM only. Why should they not employ musicians in the same manner?" Prefacing these remarks, he recalls that FCC at one time ruled (it was not a ruling, but merely a proposal — Editor) broadcasters were not permitted to carry same program on AM and FM stations, later reversing itself. But he says, AFM did not change its mind. As to TV, he states it "is not going to grow up at the expense of the musician. " CPA OH CPA, in a supplement to its VHP-1 (See March 30 Special Report), thi; week stated officially what it has been assuring broadcasters informally — that t ower installation, transmitters and receiving equipment would not come under restrictions of the order. But restrictions still cover construction involving building alterations. Criterion still is: Does project use labor and material rjpplicable to housing? And exceptions to $1,000 limitation are procurable locally under certain conditions.