Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

ENTH’ACTE !H COLOR: FCC commissioners and staff men, quite properly, are generally non-committal — but it's an open secret that they were all deeply impressed by CBS's field demonstration of its color TV system (Vol. 2, Mos. 48, 49, 50). Indeed, remark of one important member of big official party that went to New York Monday may be considered significant: "The decision on the FM low vs. high band issue was child's play compared to this.". At Tarrytown, N.Y. , 25 miles from Chrysler Bldg, antenna, they saw clear and constant polychrome images that indicated Dr. Goldmark’s system can do a v/ider range coverage job than previously demonstrated. At CBS laboratory, they saw his dual-band receiver (which he said should cost about 15% more than a straight color set in mass production) and his neutral density filter (which heightens contrast range while cutting down glare of reflected outside light). Question now is: Was this demonstration enough, added to last week's testi mony and in face of powerful opposing arguments, to impel Commission to adopt proposed CBS standards — thus causing lif e-and-death struggle between lov/-band system already authorized and under way and CBS's high-band system with its entirely different channels, entirely different transmission and reception apparatus? Here's an observation by another of Monday's inspection group: Maybe, said he, question of interchangeability (compatibility with black-and-white TV) should not be prime consideration. He was thinking aloud when he added: If CBS system v/orks, as it seems to, and if standards are high enou,gh to permit natural advances in art, fact it may conflict with current TV system is no matter. FM's relation to AM was cited as analogy. In Passaic, N.J., same day, Washington party also visited DuMont plant, saw DuMont's color work (Vol. 2, No. 48) ; saw its not-so-f ast-moving set production line; were shown new picture tube^ said to have brightness approaching 300 foot lamberts (average set today rates 60). Meanwhile, CBS v/as distributing "Tale of Two Glimps," written and illustrated in children's book format as a sort of allegorical addenda to its color TV promotion literature. It's an obviously expensive job, cloth-bound, with "color vs. monochrome" drav/ings cleverly done by author-artist Ludwig Bemelmans. FCC staffmen all got copies, of course, with v;hich presumably to bemusa themselves while awaiting closing hearings (mainly cross-examination and rebuttals) scheduled to resume soon after first Monday in January (date not yet set). lUKm OUT OF TV: Here's reason big power companies are so keen about TV. as ’explained by Chicago Commonwealth Edison's Ardien B. Rodner, mainspring of Chicago Electric Assn's current video promotion campaign: Average TV set consumes 280 watts per hour. Assuming ordinary radio (which averages 65 watts per hour) is off v/hen TV is on, power consumption chargeable to video is 215 v/atts per hour. Rodner estimates average TV set will be used 3.4 hours per day, thus consuming 731 watthours per day, 267 kilowatt-hours per year. At Washington's relatively low power rates (averaging about 2 cents for household utilities), extra cost of operating TV set runs a little under $5.50 per year. Chicago's rate is somewhat higher. Rodner calculates Chicago will have 174,000 TV sets by January, 1948 (a too liberal estimate, as outlook is now), so he figures 46,453,000 kilowatt-hours added consumption for the year. Even at 2-cent rate, that's a tidy extra sum in power company's exchequer. For, as Rodner points out, it compares with 38,950,000 added kilowatt-hours estimated in same area for such new home appliances as ranges, water heaters, coolers, freezers, heaters, etc. Hence Commonwealth's enthusiasm for TV, now spreading to New York Consolidated \ Edison, Detroit Edison, St. Louis Union Electric — all planning big TV promotions, including (as on Detroit News' new WWDT) sponsorship of telecast programs.