Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1949)

ington, Cleveland and New York, apparently utilizing the stratovision principle, I don’t think the discussion of the subject should be related to particular companies when the consideration of standards for the system are being considered. Stratovision like most other major scientific achievements offers possibility of both good and evil depending on how we choose to use the tools given us. One possibility is to refuse to use the tool and the other is to use it for mankind’s benefit. The biggest question raised against stratovision is the tremendous economic power that would be available to a licensee or licensees of the stratovision broadcasting planes, or the monopolistic possibilities of blanketing the nation by the use of the system. I think this question of economic empire in the broadcast field should be viewed in the light of the facts as they might be in the television broadcasting industry if it should develop that the Commission must adopt standards upon the patent claims of one manufacturer, and a subsidiary of that manufacturer is one of the large networks and by affiliation contracts with other licensees will provide network programs over a considerable portion of the country by coaxial cable tielines. If that manufacturer also purchases from other owners of patents the right to license others to manufacture under such patents, stratovision might be the only means of providing competition to such company or companies controlled by such company. Stratovision system of operations appears at the present state of the art to offer the only possibility for the thinly populated areas of the country to generally receive satisfactory TV signals. When the 140 channels are all assigned it does not appear likely that the thinly populated areas of the country will generally receive satisfactory TV signals from stations operating on the ground. Many more densely populated areas cannot expect service by coaxial relay and land operated stations for a number of years, if ever. In many smaller cities only one TV frequency is available and economics might well limit the smaller cities to one station regardless of frequencies available. With regard to this point, much wishful thinking has gone on with comparison of TV with the regular broadcast service. Television is a tremendously more expensive operation and the economics might not permit as many stations as AM and FM broadcast stations. Although we might get competition in the larger cities by a larger number of stations some other means of insuring competition is needed for the general solution of the problem. One thing which definitely seems undesirable is the present allocation with some cities with seven stations, others with one. Most everyone agrees that most television programming must be done on a chain basis but how can seven, six, five, four, three eleven two chains be supplied to the TV viewer in the onestation community? Stratovision offers a means of supplying broadcast TV signals over the large areas in addition to supplying the relaying of program material. The Stratovision station should be located to supply the large areas principally and the highly populated areas incidentally. We should not permit a situation to develop as in the case of our present clear channel stations which are used primarily to supply large cities. Stations on the gi-ound could still provide service to the larger cities and within those cities should be able to provide the higher signal intensities generally required together with program items of local interest. On the other hand, if stratovision as a licensee or as a license system seems undesirable, certainly stratovision transmission should be considered seriously as a common carrier. This concept of common carrier places the competition at the program level rather than at the station level. If three broadcasting channels were provided for each stratovision plane, three separate programs would be available over all the large areas. In addition the same and other programs could be available in the larger cities. No chain or group would necessarily have exclusive use of any stratovision facility. Undoubtedly this poses many regulatory problems, but the residents of large areas whose very isolation makes TV most important to them may go without TV service unless stratovision is employed or some other development of the art is established. • Finally, your letter states: “Also, we are concerned deeply with respect to the marketing of television sets. Television-set manufacturers and spokesmen for some broadcasters have repeatedly declared that present-day sets will not be outmoded in the near future. Nevertheless, it appears obvious to us that when and if licensing is authorized in the ultra-highfrequencies and television develops in those frequencies, television sets being manufacturerd today will be obsolescent. While it is contended that an attachment can be made which will meet such a contingency, in part, we are not greatly impressed with the efficacy of similar attachments for FM frequency shifts. We note that no purchaser of a television set today is warned or advised that such an attachment may be necessary or, in fact, that in a matter of a few months or years, the set for which he is paying $200 to $1,000 may be junk. We wonder, therefore, if some action cannot be taken by the Federal Communications Commission which would result in set-manufacturers making clear to such buyers that caveat emptor should not enter into the purchase of such a highly complex and intricate mechanism as a television set. “We understand that the Federal Communications Commission has no present legal authority to compel such action. If the Commission is of this opinion also, or that suggestions to television manufacturers to correct this practice may fall on deaf ears, we would appreciate recommendations for legislation to meet this problem. The public requires protection.” At the outset, it should be pointed out, that television sets presently being purchased will not be rendered entirely obsolete by developments unless the Commission deletes the present 12 channels entirely. As was pointed out earlier, no proposal has been made to the Commission nor is there any notice pending to delete any of the present 12 channels. Of course, if ultra-high channels are added, there will be some obsolescence. To be sure, converters can readily be made which will alleviate the matter somewhat but as is recognized in your letter, converters are not as satisfactory as regular receivers. It is not possible to measure accurately the degree of partial obsolescence that might result from adding ultrahigh channels. No official census exists concerning ownership of television receivers by the public. However, a rather comprehensive survey made by Television Magazine shows that there were slightly more than 1,000,000 television sets installed as of February 1, 1949. Of this number only 69,700 — or less than 7% — were in cities in which fewer than four television stations have been allocated. Only 27,000 — or less than 3% — were in cities to which only one station has been allocated. Thus, on the basis of present distribution of receivers, most of the owners of TV sets could get a great deal of usefulness from their sets even if ultra-high channels are added. Moreover, as is stated in your letter, the Commission at the present time has no authority to require manufacturers to notify prospective purchasers concerning possible obsolescence of television receivers. You ask our opinion as to whether legislation is desirable on this point. This question poses a fundamental problem of the proper scope of the federal government in protecting consumers against the purchase of possible obsolete equipment. This would be a problem not only for this Commission but also for other government agencies. In our field the task would be extremely difficult. Radio broadcasting is but a quarter of a century old and already developments have occurred which in other fields would have taken a century. In the space of a quarter of a century not only has standard broadcasting been developed but in addition two new services — FM and television — have gotten off to a healthy start and facsimile broadcasting appears to be ready to make its debut. Moreover, developments occur so fast that there is no assurance that some revolutionary development will not emerge from the laboratory that will make present systems obsolete because the public advantage to be gained from its adoption outweighs the public burden incident to partial or complete obsolescence of equipment. 5