Television digest with AM-FM reports (Jan-Dec 1951)

3 CRITICS DISSECT END-OF FREEZE PLAN: TV allocation plan v/on*t be changed easily — you can count on that. General FCC attitude on its proposal (see Vol. 7:12 and TV Allocation Report) is that plan is final in basic philosophy, that it will take completely new and earth-shaking argument to effect changes, but that a few bets may have been overlooked in assignments to individual cities. And don't expect anything to shake freeze loose for many, many months. Even "partial" unfreezing — new uhf stations, more power for existing vhf, new vhf stations in Territories — could turn out to be impractical in many places. Real end of freeze — new stations on air — can scarcely come before 1952, and probably well into the year. Educational channel reservations are what stick in most aspirants' craws. They believe weakness of such reservations will become readily apparent to FCC during city-by-city hearings starting May 25 — doubting whether many educators will make convincing showings. Some are really incensed, speaking of "socialized TV, " "two systems of telecasting," etc. Look for plenty of political repercussions, too, as applicants go to their Congressmen and complain; "Look what they did to our State and cities." Someone might take plan to courts, contending educational reservation is illegal "pre judgment " of applicants. Decision in color case, when handed down by Supreme Court (see p. 6), might have bearing on such litigants' chances. FCC Bar Assn, will ask for oral argument before city-by-city hearing, rather than after (as FCC proposes). Supported by Comr. Jones' dissent, it will contend that fixed allocation, requiring rule-making for changes, is both illegal and administratively unfeasible. But NARTB has gone along with idea of fixed plan. DuMont will certainly attack basic plan when it files comments, since proposal rej ects DuMont's painstaking 1949-50 blueprint for 4-network competition, nonintermixing of vhf -uhf (Supplement No. 68). CBS is bound to argue vigorously for more commercial vhf, especially in its key outlet cities — Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, etc. Yet ABC, which has as much to lose as DuMont, network-wise, but owns full limit of 5 stations, feels over-all plan is sound. And NBC, satisfied, is best situated of all — with strongest network ties plus 5 key stations of its own. ❖ * * * What plan means to networks is readily apparent when you tote up commercial vhf channels proposed; 188 one-station cities, 93 two-station, 19 three-station, only 6 four-station, only 2 seven-station, none with 5 or 6 stations. Many insist this means "two-network monopoly. " But argument from FCC runs this way; "DuMont plan was good job, and fine from network point of view, but artificial and wasteful from standpoint of full channel utilization. If our plan turns out to promote monopoly, remember that we have a pending proceeding designed precisely to eliminate monopoly." [See network "equalization" proposal, Vol. 6:40-48 and Supp. No. 71.] "Uhf must come along and alleviate problem." FCC argument also goes. "Even if uhf is long in coming, we must make full use of vhf, which we have done." But everyone wants vhf, regarding lihf as the "leavings". With xahf an economic unknown, some observers visualize eventual mergers of networks. CBS can't be very happy with FCC nowadays, as it balances dubious color victory against allocations which would stymie it from owning stations (except possibly via through-the-nose purchases) in "lif e ' s-blood" markets. Already, CBS is being criticized by some of its AM affiliates who charge they were advised to stay out of TV when channels were to be had for the asking. But vigor of opposition to FCC's plan may be tempered somewhat with knowledge that the longer the fight the longer the freeze remains. Many technical and procedural questions won't be answered until FCC has pondered all comments after May 8 deadline. For example: