Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1952)

3 Vhf grantees should have no trouble making real time — unless they happen to be awfully finicky about getting exactly the equipment they want before juice is turned on. The uhf situation is different, and Williamson hit it on the nose: highpowered uhf transmitters just aren't available. RCA feels it can do good job of 1-kw deliveries this year, but chances for 10-kw seem very slim. And newly-announced 5-kw and 50-kw units, using klystron tube (Vol. 8:27), aren't promised before end of next year. GE has promised its only 12-kw transmitter to WHUM, Reading, Pa. Company thinks it may get out another this year, but no more than that. It can, however, supply 100-watt units (which drive the 12-kw) right away. Its 1-kw transmitter and more 12-kw aren't expected before early 1953. DuMont expects to deliver 1-kw units this year, but it doesn't promise its 5-kw and larger before next year. * # * * FCC is hesitant about low-power interim operations, probably even more than the grantees. Many at Commission vowed "never again" after seeing public get soured on FM because of pipsqueak signals. But FCC has a real dilemma. It doesn't want to repeat the FM experience, yet it is terribly anxious to get uhf going fast — particularly in new vhf -uhf markets. It would like to see uhf stations start at least as soon as vhf, to encourage purchase of vhf -uhf sets, give uhf station even break in capturing an audience. Getting on air too late may be even more dangerous for uhf station than a start with low power. That 1-kw transmitter can give good service, with high-gain antenna, has been demonstrated at Bridgeport. Would that be adequate in other cities? Would even lower power be satisfactory? Those questions will have to be answered soon. Another problem may become serious before long — steel. Strike has created uncertainties over deliveries of towers. If it continues much longer, it can jeopardize plans of grantees who have no substitutes for complete new towers — such as AM towers, mountain sites or tall buildings. HO CPs THIS WEEK, BUT MORE ARE ON TAP: Jittery applicants and their quarterbacks — attorneys and engineers steering applications through FCC — waited tensely this week, but Commission didn't grant any CPs. After burst of 18 grants last week, everyone feels anything can happen. But FCC's pace for next few weeks is extremely unpredictable — largely because of new McFarland Bill, which became law this week and affects certain granting procedures. Until FCC feels more comfortable about the new provisions, it may be inclined to move slowly. Some cautious FCC legalists felt Commission had moved too fast, even before McFarland Bill was signed by President Truman. Though there's plenty of confusion, in and out of Commission, as to exact significance of new law, general feeling is that processing procedures won't be affected radically. A big reason for lack of grants this week is quite simple: Staff hasn't had time to clear many applications. It worked night and day preparing those granted, set for hearing or dismissed last week, but couldn't keep up pace. Applicants certainly caught on in a hurry, after last week's quick flurry. They filed 63 this week, most of them in cities next up in processing lines, bringing total to 610. [These are all digested in Addenda 15-A herewith. This is start of new series, supplementary to TV Factbook 15, giving you complete up-to-the-minute record of all applications, grants, amendments, etc.] Applications which FCC didn’t grant last week, though they were uncontested, provide interesting stories. Some contained faulty engineering by applicant, were dismissed. Others were stymied by FCC's own boners in allocating some uhf channels in violation of its own mileage minima. But Louis Wasmer's Channel 2 application for Spokane, still uncontested in fact, was bypassed because of some undisclosed reason dealing with his qualifications. There may be others like that. We've analyzed top 25 cities in each processing line, considering all appli