Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1948)

needed to fill "pipelines," smooth over spotty tube production. Such a stockpile is nowhere in sight; set makers are still using tubes as fast as they're made. Even with promised increased production by top tubemakers RCA, Sylvania, DuMont, GE, Rauland and North American Philips, it looks as if it will be second quarter of 1949 before situation eases at all. I IS: ♦ ♦ ♦ As for sum of TV predictions, add them up yourself — the "guest imated" 1949 production of the big-name boys of radio, starting with the 600,000 Philco's president John Balderston mentioned before Congressional committee last week (Vol. 4;51): RCA says it's No. 1 now and w^ill be next year, so chalk up 600,000 for that company, too. Zenith, which recently acquired Rauland, suggests 450,000 as its 1949 ' TV output (Vol. 4:50). Admiral promises 400,000 (Vol. 4:51), Motorola at least j 250,000. GE is believed to be readying for 250,000, at least; Crosley 175,000; Mag> navox and Westinghouse 100,000 each; Du?/ont, Emerson, Stromberg-Carlson, Bendix, at least 50,000 each. And there are many others, like Farnsworth, Hallicraf ters , Colonial, Belmont, lesser names, to say nothing of private brands, i All these add up to well over 5,000,000. Probably honest expectations, for the most part, based on capacity — but all predicated on normal conditions of plentiful tube and component and materials supplies. PROPOSALS OF THE TV MANUFACTURERS: FCC has been seeking TV advice from industry, particularly about lihf (Vol. 4:51). Well, now it has some definite recommendations from RMA's top-level "cooperation" committee (Vol. 4:41,50). FCC Chairman Coy was I ill Monday, so Comrs. Walker and Webster met with and listened to: Sylvania' s Balcom, Zenith's Bonfig, Philco's Carmine, Hardy and Smith, RCA's Elliott and Schmit, DuJ^ont's DuI.5ont and Goldsmith, Motorola's Stellner, RM^A's Geddes. Here's what RMJl states they urged on FCC : 1. End vhf freeze with all possible speed, so industry is warranted in proceeding with plant and output expansion. Vhf must remain backbone of national service, principally for larger cities. 2. Allocate uhf "promptly,” so service can begin as fast as equipment can be developed ("one to 3 years"). Uhf is primarily for smaller cities. There should be minimum overlapping of vhf and uhf signals — and therefore "a minimum of 2-band receivers . " In short, vhf-only and vihf-only cities, so far as possible. 3. Forget about color in uhf (at least 475-890 me). "It is far distant and would require even higher uhf frequencies." 4. Provide for at least 4 TV stations per city for competition and networks. Presentation was verbal, informal. Although RMA press release reported agreement was unanimous. Zenith's Bonfig said agreement was on broad, general ideas; he doesn't consider Zenith necessarily committed to all specifics enumerated above, is waiting for formal presentation before commenting. Dr. DuJt^ont has been delegated to put ideas on paper, to be circulated among committee, then submitted to FCC. There are some obvious inconsistencies in RMA group's recommendations, as released, which may be clarified in formal report. First, allocation of vhf-only and uhf-only cities is advocated "to avoid costly future 2-band sets." Yet Dr. DuMont says he can make them more cheaply than vhf-only (Vol. 4:38,51) and Zenith is already making them (Vol. 4:47). Second, in asking for 4 channels per city, v.'hat w'ould they do about the 82 cities among top sales-ranking 140 which have less than 4 vhf channels each assigned them, yet already have 41 stations either on air or with CPs? Should those grants be revoked and uhf substituted? Obviously, what the manufacturers v;ant , and understandably, is assurance that consideration of uhf doesn't lengthen vhf freeze into paralysis — yet that uhf be available to provide abundance of stations essential to a flourishing national telecasting service. FCC has no quarrel with those aims. But its majority has made it clear they think uhf development’ must be stimulated (Vol. 4:51). It's apparent that whatever action FCC takes with respect to the vhf freeze will embody that objective. For Commission continues to say - and nearly everyone agrees — that vhf simply cannot provide a "truly nation-wide and competitive" TV service.