Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1952)

4 committee agreed that there's no need for hard-&-fast rules to govern placement of towers, and practice of approving sites on case-by-case basis should be continued. Working committee has completed draft of report which includes its recommendations based on study of potential number of high IV towers. Report won't be released officially until Sept. 2, deadline for comments by members of committee. Report will then be submitted to FCC Comr. Webster and CAA deputy administrator F.B. Lee for "appropriate action." This will involve calling meeting of a larger industry-govt, group, formed last April (Vol. 8:17), to approve agreement. Approval is virtually certain. Working committee agreed "present airspace subcommittee procedures are eminently satisfactory and no changes should be made," but it did propose changes in two other rules: (1) Amendment of CAA Safety Manual to govern minimum clearances of objects near direct air routes; (2) Specifications for marking and lighting of future antenna towers (not to apply to towers already built). "The conflict between aviation and the radio & TV industry in competing for the use of the airspace is not expected to present a broad national problem, but may present some acute local problems in or near the large metropolitan areas." report states. It praises "excellent" cooperation between the two industries which "has served to emphasize the realization that both the TV and aviation industries can and must live together and that neither desires to exclude the other from reasonable enjoyment of the airspace." , * * * * Aviation industry's original demand for new criteria to govern high towers was sparked by flamboyant newspaper accounts of FCC's Final Allocation Report last April — implying that 2000 new TV stations, each with 2000-ft. tower, would spring up virtually overnight. But in subsequent committee meetings TV representatives — NARTB, Federal Communications Bar Assn., Assn, of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers — together with FCC, allayed aviation's fears of "an Empire State Bldg, in every cornfield." For example, as report points out: It would cost $1-1,500,000 to build a 2000-ft. antenna, and require about 100 acres of land. Only a station in very large market could afford such a project. FCC allocations have been made to 1240 towns and market areas; of these, only 171 have population of more than 50,000; 593 have 10-50,000; 530 less than 10,000. No more than 5% of TV towers will exceed 1000 ft., an NARTB study shows. Survey by unnamed engineering firm found "the most probable maximum number of TV stations in U.S. within the next 10 years will be 1100." Maximum antenna height proposed in any of the 700 TV applications on file with FCC Aug. 1 was 1585 ft. above ground. Another study of first 603 applications filed since April 14 shows that only 395 of these or 65.5% can be granted because of multiple applications for single channel. Of the 603 applications: Nearly 80% request towers less than 600 ft. high. Some 10% propose to build towers of 600-1000 ft. ; 3.6% ask 1000-1500 ft. ; less than .2 of 1% want towers 1500 ft. or higher. There are no applications for 2000 ft. or more. Numerically, there are 23 applications for towers over 1000 ft. Only one asks more than 1200 ft. — 1585 ft. in Oklahoma City. PLUGGING UHF and supporting FCC’s allocation plan, Comr. Rosel Hyde in Aug. 29 address at Western Electronic Show & Convention in Long Beach, Cal. said he was pleased to note that about 40% of all applications are for uhf; that applicants are seeking uhf in such vhfserved cities as Washington, Philadelphia and Cleveland; that large percentage of CPs granted so far are uhf; that “certain applicants are clamoring for an opportunity to put such stations on the air before the end of this year." Regarding uhf receivers, Hyde said: “I do not wish to seem bureaucratic, but I feel strongly that every purchaser of a new TV set is entitled to a set providing complete TV service. And, a receiver which is not designed for uhf reception, does not offer complete television service.” Comr. Hyde defended allocation plan along same lines as his engineering colleague Comr. Stei'ling (Vol. 8:24). He gave 5 reasons behind adoption of fixed allocation plan: (1) Most efficient use of spectrum. (2) Opportunity for smaller communities to enter TV later. (3) Educational reservation. (4) Border problems can be settled once and for all. (5) “Administrative necessity.” Without an allocation plan, Hyde said, there would have been hearings “so complicated that they would have effectively kept the freeze, insofar as the more populous areas of the U. S. are concerned, in perhaps a different, but in an equally cold deep freeze locker for years ahead.”