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

2 (Vol. 7:33,35) have goaded CBS into all-out effort to get more stations allotted to 3 major cities where it wants outlets — Chicago , Boston. San Francisco. These facts were clearly spelled out this week by CBS executive v.p. Joseph Ream in statement filed for FCC's "written" allocations hearing. Seeking to persuade Commission that it should provide additional commercial vhf channels in Chicago and San Francisco, and 2 more in Boston, Ream gets right to the point; "The first and most important [reason] is the matter of dollars and cents. Networking in TV is an exceedingly expensive business and the expenses are continuing to rise. On the other hand, station. . . operation has in the last year or two turned the corner. Many stations are now operating at a profit and some, particularly in the largest cities, have been operating at a very considerable profit... It follows the radio pattern, in which by far the major portion of Columbia's broadcasting profits have been attributable to our owned stations." "Clearances" were another serious problem. Ream said. "Inability to clear in one or two key markets, such as the cities involved in our proposals, may sometimes spell the difference between obtaining a network advertiser or losing it... The entire networking operation is likely to be affected, since a weak link in an important market affects the network itself. This is especially true in TV networking. Since it costs no more to produce a program which reaches 10,000,000 people than it costs to produce the same program reaching 5,000,000 people, it is elementary that the sponsor will normally insist on the greatest possible coverage in order to spread his per capita cost." "Originations" were next networking prerequisite cited by Ream; "There has been an increasing tendency to originate TV network programs in cities other than New York. Owned stations can thus serve as very useful laboratories. Yet because the cost of TV facilities and of the operating organizations are high, it is far more efficient and economical to integrate network and local operations, rather than to have only network facilities in a city." "Very real dangers of monopoly" were seen in FCC's proposed allocations. While not deprecating future of uhf and its probabilities of bringing reasonable network competition eventually. Ream feared that FCC plan will "permit the development, during the critical formative years, of only two full, nation-wide competing TV networks." This period, he thought, is "perhaps 5 years, perhaps more." NIGHTY FEW NEW STATIONS BEFORE 1953: If you're counting on a lot of new TV stations "soon" — even next year — forget it. Chances for more than merest handful before well into 1953 are extremely slim. Throughout the long 3 years of freeze — third anniversary is Sept. 30 — there's been persistent impression that new stations will blossom almost immediately after a final TV allocation decision is rendered. Final allocation decision of FCC, when it does eventually arrive, will not mean new stations right off. It will simply mean the "processing" wheels can begin to roll again; New applications will then be accepted, hearings will be held for cities where applicants outnumber channels, CPs will be issued — then construction can begin. That's the long and short of it. Let's look at steps to be taken before final decision, then at the processes leading to actual station operation — with realistic estimates of time involved; (1) "Written" allocations hearing, now going on, is due to end Nov. 26. Some legal rag-tags inevitably will remain, and FCC will be lucky to clean them up in 2-4 weeks. And if someone takes FCC to court to dispute its procedures (quite likely) that period could stretch. There's no telling what a court will do. (2) Drafting of final decision may then begin. Some commissioners say: "We've got to do something by January." Others; "February is more realistic." (3) New applications will then be accepted for a specific period during which no grants will be made. Chairman Coy, in public statements, has never spoken of less than two months. But some commissioners are thinking in terms of one month. As one put it; "Lord knows, everyone has had plenty of time to make up his mind and prepare most of his application." Assume one month — and you're up to March.