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

2 for pet project she put across, still feeling educators aren't getting enough. (2) Number of vhf channels currently stands about same — though there's still talk of reducing co-channel separations from 180 to 165 miles. Uhf may be narrowed from 165 to 155 miles. Whatever minima are chosen for Nev/ England, the Gulf and West Coast allocations will undoubtedly have greater separations. Consideration is area-by-area, and blanket minima may v;ell go by the boards. Watch Pittsburgh. Commission's 8 staff teams — one for each area — now go to work in earnest. Some general principles may be formulated now, others to be laid down after whole allocation has been made. Everyone at FCC appeared heartened by week's progress, with eagerness to "get on with the decision" manifest. For present, speed is up to staff, and commissioners are pleased with its work under Paul Dobin, chief of Rules & Standards Div. Chairman Coy apparently feels free enough, in fact, to take off Dec. 20 for St. Petersburg, Fla., for vacation with family until Jan. 3 or 7, and Comr. Sterling will be gone, to New Orleans and Houston, for inspection and hearing Dec. 10-18. Post-freeze handling of applications, as recommended by Communications Bar Assn. (Vol. 7:48), has met v;ith some criticism from a few members. They contend; (1) Acceptance of FCC's principle of allocation by rule-making is an "abdication" of Assn.'s stand previously taken (Vol. 7:26). (2) Delays may be inherent in conducting hearings with all applicants, vhf and uhf, consolidated in one hearing. Say critics; "Although an applicant might propose a channel in the vhf band and an appropriate site therefor, such applicant might be found eligible for a grant on some other channel concerning which he had submitted no engineering proof at the hearing, with the result that other applicants would not have opportunity to cross-examine with respect thereto." To get all members' views, in light of objections, bar group has asked all members to comment by Dec. 21. ^ ^ ^ Arguments for pre-freeze applicants involved in hearings (Vol. 7:48) have been summarized by WFOX, Milwaukee, through brief filed by attorneys Haley, McKenna & Wilkinson. Brief analyzes the 9 cities concerned, involving 26 applicants in Milwaukee, San Francisco, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Diego, Atlantic City, Reading, Harrisburg, Easton-Allentown-Bethlehem. Applicant points to: (1) "Huge investment in time, effort and money by the applicants [and FCC]." (2) Time element "is of particular significance. . .vjith the Commission forced to operate on a reduced budget and faced with a hearing calendar beyond equal as soon as the freeze is lifted. And the public at large also has very substantial stake in the proceedings, since scuttling of the hearing records and opening of the proceedings to ' j ohnnies-come-lately ' undoubtedly would delay by a year or more the commencement of broadcasting by the successful applicants, not to mention further possible delays resulting from court litigation." (3) "New applicants have no grounds for complaint, inasmuch as the channels would have been assigned heretofore but for the freeze and since uhf channels, a service not allocated at the time of hearings, will not be involved." WHITHER TIME SALES? AN EXPERT'S VIEWS; Looking ahead to the post-freeze day when there are enough stations so that TV networks can really operate full-blown, instead of being the wide-gapped makeshifts they now are, will TV advertising, already very expensive, price itself out of business? Can ever-increasing rates and fabulous costs of programs be maintained when there are more markets served by more stations? Are the networks justified in contemplating another rate hike? Where's this fantastic business of telecasting heading, revenue-wise? Everyone likes to forecast, though in TV very few have guessed right thus far about the remarkable time-selling achievements of TV's scant handful of stations — now frozen at 108. But when the crystal-gazing is done by an authority like