Television digest with AM-FM reports (Jan-Dec 1950)

Critical national emergency was called forcibly to attention of Commission by the judges — something FCC has deliberately ignored through whole color issue. Decision took careful note of Comr. Sterling’s opinion on that score, then said: "It is a matter of common knowledge that the situation [described by Sterling] becomes more acute with each passing day, and the prospects are that it will be far worse before it is better. It is hardly conceivable that either the Commission or the government would under such circumstances desire, much less insist, that the order in controversy be made effective." * * * * Worth noting, too, is court's unusually strong opinion that manufacturers won't hurry into color set production and that public won't spend |1^ billion for adaptation and conversion of 9,000,000 existing sets until Supreme Court decides. "It does not square with common sense." said court majority, "to think that manufacturers would rush into the business either of manufacturing adapters and converters for existing sets or manufacturing sets with built-in adapters and converters while this controversy is pending. And to maintain that the public in any considerable number would purchase adapters and converters, assiaming they were available, under the existing state of doubt and uncertainty, is to cast a reflection on the intelligence of people." Nor did court make any bones about tossing ball to Supreme Court, where case is headed anyway, or about its desire to avoid going into complete trial. "We have been unable to free our minds." it said, "of the question as to why we should devote the time and energy which the importance of the case merits, realizing as we must that the controversy can only be finally terminated by a decision of the Supreme Court... In other words, this is little more than a practice session where the parties prepare and test their ammimition for the big battle ahead. Moreover, we must give recognition to our limited scope in reviewing an order of an administrative agency..." Court majority also observed, quite aptly: "In our view, the public interest in this matter has been magnified far beyond its true perspective. . .We think [that] the contest is mainly between two great broadcasting systems for a position of advantage in the rapidly developing field of television." * * * ♦ RCA's post-hearing reports greatly impressed court, which said: "It is pertinently pointed out, however, that a number of critical findings are based upon evidence [taken in] the earlier stage of the proceeding which is not representative of the situation as it existed at time the findings were adopted... "As we view the situation, the most plausible contention made by plaintiffs is that the Commission abused its discretion in refusing to extend the effective date of its order so that it might further consider the situation." But, court concluded, RCA's argument on that score, "appealing as it is, must be discarded" since it was something court couldn't legally consider. Dissenting Judge LaBuy got sold on compatibility, also denounced FCC for adopting CBS system in "hope and speculation" it could be improved (through use of tri-color tube, long-persistence phosphors, horizontal interlace). Said he: "It is conceded by all and it is self-evident that the best system of color TV is a compatible one. .. Indeed, compatibility is the coveted goal of all engineers and scientists in the TV industry... "The Commission recognized and the record before the Commission is replete with evidence that rapid strides are being made toward perfection of a fully compatible system. There is ample basis for the conclusion that the scientists laboring in the laboratories of the industry may soon resolve the problem of compatibility. "In view of the admittedly fluid state of the art, it is difficult to understand why the Commission refused to hear additional evidence and chose instead a course of action, using its own words, based 'on speculation and hope rather than on demonstrations ' . . . If hope and speculation may lawfully be substituted for evidence as a foun