Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1953)

4 tent new attorneys with little or no broadcast experience will do a good job — if sufficient FCC personnel can't be shifted to TV from other duties. How long would it take to clear backlog of applications with larger staff? Sen. Johnson said that 24 examiners, plus attorneys and engineers to handle their cases, could do it in about 2 years. He said that FCC Chairman Hyde estimated 250 more applications would be filed in a year in addition to the 600-odd now before the Commission. Hyde added, incidentally, that FCC can now give 30-day service on all uncontested applications — regardless of priority position. * * * * Senators weren't concerned only with funds when they quizzed FCC on its TV handling procedures at May 18 hearing before Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee. Chairman Hyde outlined new hearing procedures, said he believed these alone would increase speed 25%. He was asked what else would help. He recommended change in McFarland Act provision isolating commissioners from consultation with staff. He also said that examiners should be arm of FCC rather than independent. Would commissioners themselves be bottleneck when augmented examiner corps started funneling decisions to them? Hyde thought not, as long as commissioners get additional legal-engineering help to do the spadework. As newest FCC member, Comr. Doerfer was asked for his ideas on procedures. No wallflower, the articulate and vigorous member from Wisconsin had these points: (1) The "protest" procedure, which holds up CPs, should be reexamined. He said that only legitimate reason for protest is injury to public, not the economic injury to applicants. Present law, he said, "lays too much emphasis on the equity of the individual, not enough on public interest." (2) "Commission should be given more leeway in choosing between two wellqualified applicants." As against the minutiae and delays of hearings, he favored something approaching flip-of-the-coin. (3) Like Hyde, he objected to "insulation of commissioners from hearing examiners." He said that Wisconsin Public Service Commission, which he had headed, would have been hopelessly bogged down if it hadn't consulted with examiners . (4) Priority lists should be revised, but he said he'd consult with his FCC colleagues before making suggestions. Priority of hearings is becoming hot subject, and pressures for revision of FCC's system continue to increase. Anxious applicants from larger 1-station or 2station markets and cities with no post-freeze stations contend priority list has outlived its usefulness because of post-freeze stations and CPs. City of Augusta, Ga. this week petitioned FCC to change priorities, said Commission is unfair in scheduling hearings in such cities as Chattanooga and Mobile, which now have stations or CPs, before cities such as Augusta, which have neither. City of Augusta offered new priority system which would give top billing to group of cities now numbered 19-79 in Group A-2 . FCC may be difficult to convince. During this week's Senate quiz. Chairman Hyde said that continuous change in priorities, stemming from advent of post-freeze stations, "would result in chaos." Senators want to learn still more about procedures, asked FCC to return, probably some time next week. Zenith’s quest for Ch. 2 in Chicago came to complicated climax in Court of Appeals in Washington May 20. Zenith had requested court to stop CBS from shifting WBBM-TV from Ch. 4 to Ch. 2 until court decided whether FCC was justified in throwing out Zenith's claim that Ch. 2 should be awarded only after comparative hearing open to any applicant (Vol. 9:15, 17). Court comprising Judges Stephens, Prettyman and Bazelon, did stop the shift, but said FCC could permit temporary operation on Ch. 2 now, “if it be so minded,” by one of 4 ways: (1) CBS and Zenith jointly “under trusteeship or otherwise"; (2) CBS, leasing Zenith Ch. 2 equipment; (3) Zenith alone; (4) CBS alone. Then, court will hear merits of entire case, possibly this fall. If FCC and CBS win, CBS gets the channel. If Zenith wins, a regular comparative hearing will be conducted by FCC and winner will get channel. FCC immediately asked CBS and Zenith to file applications by May 27 for STA on Ch. 2 under conditions of court order, respond to each other’s applications by June 3. Court was confused, understandably, and assumed that comparative hearing, if it comes, would be limited to Zenith and CBS. Zenith has been contending that anyone can file for the channel.