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

6 people want them — namely, when signals are available. This will be "late 1952 or early 1953," v.p. John W. Craig estimated. But, he said, "it's ready for production now. It ' s here. " Company isn't particularly interested in selling converters per se, said Craig. Its prime purpose is protection of its own customers and good name. It is conducting institutional ad campaign in 20 TV areas, emphasizing simple convertibility of vhf sets. But no "selling" campaign is contemplated. "We just want to tell the public what we have," said Mr. Craig. FCC members will be invited to demonstrations "if they're interested." Combination vhf-uhf sets, with everything built in, will be available when needed. They'll cost S20-$50 more than vhf-only, Craig estimated, and he saw "no economic sense in charging customers extra for something they can't use for a long time or may not want or need at all in some areas." Craig took crack at Zenith (Vol. 7:14), saying "misleading advertising and half-statements are worse than outright falsehoods." He said installation of Zenith uhf strips would cost money, including 3-4 hours of serviceman's time, and he pointed out that each uhf strip means one less vhf channel available. * * * ♦ Converter was built from ground up — two engineers under E. J. H. Buzzard working on it for over 2 years. Many new types of components were developed, including tubes. But all these are now ready for commercial production on standard basis. Buzzard reports. Some tricks are still trade secrets, apparently, including dialing mechanism and automatic vhf-to-uhf switching. Questions by some reporters probably reflected public confusion as to what uhf means. Apparently, some believe that uhf is an entirely different system of TV, or that it's somehow peculiarly related to color. Of course, latter concept could turn out to be right, if uhf operators in strong vhf markets eventually seize upon color as an "extra" in attempt to offset obvious competitive disadvantage. FCC Chairman Coy, speaking personally, definitely qualifies dictum in now-famous paragraph 20 of Commission’s “anti -trust report” (Vol. 7:13-14) — an April 12 press release by Theatre Owners of America quoting him, with permission, as expressing hope that film companies will make special films for TV. FCC report had said, in effect, that it might go hard on movie applicants for TV stations if it’s shown they continue to withhold their films from TV — a statement that has aroused whole motion picture industry to anger, leading influential Motion Picture Herald April 7 to headline “Knife in the Back” and editorialize that Congress should investigate “before the FCC commissioners turn themselves into commissars in charge of what the ‘proletariat’ may hear, see and think.” Said TOA statement following “very satisfactory” meeting of executive director Gael Sullivan, consultant Nathan Halpern and Washington counsel Marcus Cohn with Coy April 11: “Chairman Coy expressed the hope that motion picture producers would produce more films especially made for TV, while continuing to produce feature films designed solely for theatrical exhibition. Chairman Coy recognized that the TV broadcast needs for film to fit advertising segments call for special film product rather than the film features designed specifically for theatres.” TOA statement goes on to say movie company practices mentioned in FCC report “wei’e not intended to, and did not in fact, have any reference to practices of exhibitors” and Commission will judge “on a case-to-case basis the qualifications of applicants for TV stations who have been involved in the violation of anti-trust laws or practices which tend toward the violation of such laws.” Coy also is reported to have said FCC report will have no bearing on question of special frequencies for theatre-TV on which hearings are to be held. This backtrack may satisfy exhibitors, probably won’t sit well with producers — none but Paramount as yet showing any real desire to become telecasters — for language of FCC opinion plainly suggested release of first-run films “or else.” Actually, it’s exhibitors who don’t want firstrun films released to TV, which isn’t in cards anyhow until TV outlets (now only 107 in number) can compete with 18,000 movie houses. Following up sharp editorial in New York Times (Vol. 7:14), its radio editor Jack Gould April 8, in article critical of FCC dictum, suggested FCC “withdraw that part of its policy statement relating to the present practices of Hollywood studios as they concern TV, call a public hearing at which it can fairly set forth its own position, hear the full rebuttal of the film industry, and then reach a decision.” Wisconsin GOP Senator Wiley’s criticism (Vol. 7:14) was answered April 12 in letter (FCC Public Notice 62856) stating all FCC did was point up “possible conflict of interest” if movie company owned a TV station, but had “made no final judgement.” ■ “TV picturemaking without a camera,” both monochrome and color, is slogan of new Telechrome Inc., 88 Merrick Road, Amityville, N. Y. Pi'esident and chief engineer is J. R. Popkin-Clurman, ex-Hazeltine, who developed inexpensive devices for generating pictures (Vol. 6:8, 27). Organization offers $965 picture generator which “borrows” sync signal out-of-the-air from commercial station. It also has color gear which can generate and dis))lay signal for any system — simultaneous, field-, line-, dot-sequential or any variation thereof.