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

2 Reason why iihf should succeed is simple, now that most technical bogies have been laid low; No TV service, or very limited service, will be available to large portion of population if uhf isn't put to work. A glance at FCC's proposed allocation table (TV Factbook No. 13) confirms that. While table may be changed somewhat in final decision, note that following cities of first 50 markets have no vhf at all : Hartford, Worcester, Youngstown, Bridgeport, Springf ield-Holyoke , Allentown-Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Fall River-New Bedford. Then consider the scores of cities where uhf will outnumber vhf. It's 3-to-l, for example, in Montgomery, San Jose, Flint and Austin. Result is that dam is breaking. Of 466 applications on file, 23 are uhf — and proportion will increase rapidly. Westinghouse is willing to try uhf in such an "old" vhf town as Philadelphia. Dr. DuMont hankers for lihf in some areas. The multiple owners, such as RCA-NBC, eagerly hope FCC follows through on suggestion 2 or 3 uhf may be added to string of 5 vhf. Even for Denver, largest city without TV and earmarked for 4 vhf & 2 uhf channels, big interests will soon ask for uhf. Everyone would prefer vhf, sure. It's the bird in the hand. But the stark facts are that ; Only 557 vhf stations in 342 cities are possible on the 12 vhf channels under FCC's proposed plan — 108 of these already operating in 65 cities. On other hand, literally thousands of uhf may be built on the 70 uhf channels — everywhere. Final decision will probably squeeze in a few more vhf, but increase will be minor. TV CONSTRUCTION COSTS-NARTB's TALLY: a comprehensive analysis of TV station costs, one of industry's urgent needs, has finally emerged. It comes from logical source — NARTB. It was prepared by Neal McNaughten, director of engineering, is based on data and prices of ma.ior manufacturers, has been checked and approved by them and by representative TV station operators. "Television Construction Costs, December, 1951" is title of booklet judiich goes to printer about first of year, to be distributed to NARTB members. \/^ Study is no complete substitute for individual station analyses ; NARTB doesn't pretend that it is, but the basic costs are there. Full attention is called to many variables — legal k engineering fees (including hearings), cost of land, construction of new buildings and towers or alteration of old, different tower requirements due to climate, terrain, etc. And NARTB says that certain figures are subject to slight revision, based on data to come. Dollar figures cover both minimum and maximum powers contemplated by FCC. Where building construction is involved, NARTB warns: "Based upon $1 to |1.50 per cubic ft., it is obvious that this study doesn't contemplate a plush nickel-plated layout." Here are the figures for vhf; * * * * * (1) In cities under 50,000 (1-kw ERP, 300-ft., minimum); (a) $135,000 for station with no studios, programmed by network and/or film originations; (b) $159,000 if building or alterations needed; (c) $219,000 if studio with dual-camera chain added. If 300-ft. self-supporting tower is used instead of guyed structure, add $12,500 to foregoing estimates. (2) In cities 50,000-250,000 (2 kw, 500 ft.), figures for same 3 groups as above are; (a) $184,750, (b) $211,750, (c) $274,000. (3) In cities 250,000-1,000,000 (10 kw, 500 ft.), the estimated costs are; (a) $200,000, (b) $237,500, (c) $299,750. If remote pickup truck (without its own camera) is added, total is $332,250. (4) In cities over 1,000,000 (50 kw, 500 ft.), figures are: (a) $244,500, (b) $292,000, (c) $356,250. If complete remote truck (with camera) is included, the figure would be $438,250. In last 3 groups, if 500-ft. self-supporting tower is employed in lieu of guyed, add $38,500 to each figure. But few applicants want minimum powers. In fact, McNaughten is now analyzing recent applications from our summaries in weekly (blue) addenda to TV Factbook