Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1948)

THE TV SlillrlER POT SiMJiEHS: Only 5 new TV applications this week, fewest in 6 months, probably due to preoccupation of so many lawyers and engineers with FCC reallocation hearings. But there were other noteworthy developments: (1) Los Angeles* KFAC (C. L. Cord interests) indicated it will apply for Channel No. 13 there, now assigned Thackrey's KLAC-TV, due to be sold to Warners (Vol. 4, No. 18-26) — thus precipitating protracted legal squabble, probably also attracting other applicants. (2) Ordering of hearing on WDIA Memphis application, though enough channels are available (4 for 4), on question of financial ability — first such move by FCC. Week's TV applications: For Little Rock, Ark., Southwestern Publishing Co., Fort Smith, Channel No. 8 — third by publisher Reynolds, seeking also Tulsa, Oklahoma City. For Ithaca, N. Y. , WliCU-Cornell U, No. 4. For San Antonio, Tex., KONO, No. 12 — now 3 for 3. For Salt Lake City, KUTA, No. 2. For Seattle, Edward Lasker, No. 7 — now 6 for 3; he also seeks Denver, Salt Lake City (see TV Addenda 4-A) . DIMI^rJENDO FOR THE FBOJECTiONS: say what some set makers will about their projec tion receivers (i.e., home models using lenses and reflection screens to frame images up to newspaper-page size), simple fact is they aren't being produced in great numbers. Out of RA'J\.-reported 18-month postwar TV production of 399,590 sets of all kinds up to June 1 (Vol. 4, No. 26), only 19,909 were projection models, or just about mere 5%. May units totaled only 1,121 vs. April's 1,842, January's 2,295, all of 1947's 12,527. Fact that Fisher, Scott, Hallicraf ters , Pilot and others are going in for Protelgram (Vol. 4, No. 25), fact that big RCA is still sold on projections, may increase rate of output — but that's yet to be seen. Factory folk insist higher prices are main retarding factor (they're largely console models, usually combinations). But there's school of thought that insists direct-view gives more satisfactory picture. This school — DuMont is chief protagonist, Crosley and Westinghouse apparent disciples — looks to bigger tubes (12 to 16-in.) as answer to average home need and desire (Vol. 3, No. 47; Vol. 4, No. 4, 5, 8, 12, 23). ECONOMIC QUESTION MARKS OF TV; Don Lee's Lewis Allen Weiss scrubbed off some of TV's glamour makeup with a rough brush when he told NAB conferees that small-time operators had better keep clear of it for the present if they don't want to get burned. So crammed with sound business judgment and plain horse sense were his impromptu remarks, we think they're worth more attention than given in our summary report from Los Angeles convention (Vol. 4, No. 21). For realistic, tough-minded, business-wise Lew Weiss knows whereof he speaks, his company having been a TV experimenter some 17 years. His was a timely note of caution against what he termed the current "fever" and "frenzy" over TV. In essence, these were his observations: He unhesitatingly grants TV "its rich and compelling advantages over every other form of advertising" and agrees "the public is obviously ready for TV and TV is ready for the public." But, he warns: "Ma^y broadcasters arte rushing headlong into bankruptcy in a field they have confused with AM." Many cities under 500,000 al, ready have several applicants, he notes, yet are unlikely tO' support even one station. He calls this a "strange phenomenon" for the broadcasting business, which developed slowly and normally, giving opportunity to train professional personnel. 'Then he strips TV down to its commercial buff in "cold terms of circulation." points out that the entire growth of TV is geared to receiver distribution, therefore it behooves every TV enterpriser tO' study that potential carefully "at the manufacturer's level." Then there's the danger of a possible move into uhf. with attendant "economic shock" and possible obsolescence — "a risk that should be Properly calculated in the light of our recent experience with FM. . . . "I am tremendously enthusiastic." he concludes, "about [TVs’] possibilities for public service but as a business man I cannot ignore the huge question mark that looms over and shadows its. possibilities as a source of profit.. ..TV does not present a profitable undertaking for the short-term entrepreneur, and’ all consideration of this new medium must be geared to a long-term evaluat ion. . . . The wise ' broadcaster, if he is sure that he can afford it, will undertake to provide his market with the gratifying service of TV as a plus to the service prx>vided bv his ,AM. upon which he must depend for the income to support both operations."