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.
MR. PETRILLO BIDES HIS TIME: As of Friday night, still no word from Petrillo about AM-FM duplication, still the same negative response from his Chicago office (Vol. 5, No. 32). Petrillo' s aides say he's out of town, others that he's resting on his farm near Chicago — storing up strength and ideas, no doubt, for his Sept. 15 reappearance before House Labor subcommittee. Certainly, his decision will be known by then at least. Meanwhile, we're getting still more reports of AM-FM duplication, especially by independents and in some cases by network affiliates, with nobody seeming to care any more. It shouldn't be long now.
EEC's TV PLAN, LOSS OR GAIN? It's a bit too early to gauge reactions to FCC's proposal to take away community TV Channel No. 1 (44-50 me), assign it to non-government fixed and mobile services, as means of eliminating interference probed at midJune engineering conference (Vol. 3, No. 24). Plainly, FCC planners hate to do it, for it means TV will then have only 12 channels left, with many sets already manufactured for 13. TV spokesmen say they don't intend to give up No. 1 by default — even though, in compensation, FCC proposes to eliminate sharing provisions between TV and other services, except government on Channels 7 and 8 (174-180 & 180-188 me).
Detailed plan was set forth in 9-page FCC Mimeo 10421 released Aug. 14 (we'll get you a copy, if you wish). Comments and objections are invited by Sept. 15. If they warrant, FCC will set date for oral arguments/ This is what proposals v/ould do to present assignments (p. 8, Supp. 17) :
(1) Two cities would lose their single channel assignments — Trenton, N.J. and Bridgeport, Conn., where no one has yet applied. (2) Three cities would lose one channel each — Chicago (No. 13), Cleveland (No. 7), Columbus (No. 8). (3)
Eleven cities would have present channel assignments reshuffled, without losing any — Canton, 0. ; Fall River-New Bedford, Mass. ; Harrisburg, Pa. ; Manchester, N.H. ; Racine-Kenosha, Wis. ; Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Pa. ; South Bend, Ind. ; SpringfieldKolyoke, Mass. ; Springfield, 0. ; York, Pa. ; and Riverside, Cal., where KPRO has only grant thus far to Channel No. 1 (Supp. 18-C). KPRO would get No. 6 instead under new plan. None of other cities in latter category has any TV grants or applicants.
Supporting plan, FCC engineers say it would also eliminate interference on TV Channels No. 4 (66-72) and No. 5 (76-82) caused by fixed and mobile services (mainly aero) now operating in in-between band of 72-76 me. These services would be limited to fixed circuits so engineered that interference would be nil. But 72-76 me communications services would be allowed to continue for 5 more years.
On other hand, FCC proposal does nothing to overcome adjacent channel interference from amateurs in 50-54 me, now playing hob with TV Channel No. 2. Nor is anything proposed to overcome harmonic interference from "hams" in 28 me band, also to Channel 2. And no solution is attempted for harmonics from diathermy and industrial heating devices, though it's thought these will be slight once equipment makers improve their gadgets. Also unsolved is interference from TV to aircraft navigational systems in 108-120 me band.
Copyright 1947 by Radio News Bureau