Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

4 DECEMBER 5, 1960 The FCC More about ALLOCATIONS ANALYSES: No FCC problem, except pos sibly AM clear channels, has received such thorough discussion & analysis as TV allocations (see pp. 1 & 17). The Commission is due to dig into the subject again this week, and, as is customary, it has had its staff present an evaluation of alternatives. Our impression is that the staff has put substantial emphasis on ways & means of making vhf & uhf work together in order constantly to improve uhf while not hurting the vhf service. Some of its suggestions: (1) Abandon the short-spaced “interim plan” for vhf. (2) Make no more vhf grants whatsoever. (3) Turn over to non-broadcast mobile services all unused vhf assignments, possibly also requiring TV to share its vhf channels with such services — ^the latter to be located beyond normal TV contours, however. (4) Make uhf channels available on a first-come, firstserved basis, dropping the table of specific city assignments & granting CPs according to the best engineering practices possible. FCC, not the applicant, would specify the channel. Operating uhfs would be permitted to go to lower channels. (5) Ease some technical restrictions on uhf imtil they’re needed. The thinking behind the foregoing is something like this: Everyone would know that TV henceforth will expand only into uhf. Vhf operators would be happy because they would not be disturbed. Uhf operators would appreciate that TV would grow only in their direction, that their ranks would gradually be augmented. Non-broadcast services would get some relief for their growing needs for more vhf spectrum; they might even operate on adjacent channels to TV, provided a 1-mc guard band is used. Abandonment of the uhf table of assignments would encourage applicants to get in early to nail down low channels. Uhfs could build more cheaply if they didn’t have to buy such things as vestigial sideband filters. And, finally, even if the plan doesn’t work well after a few years, no one has been hurt and the FCC can still go back to considering other ideas. A move to all-uhf seems to have a fair amount of support among Commission staff members. They note that many uhfs are rendering excellent service where they have little or no vhf competition, and they assume that much of the country, if not all, could be well served by uhf — but they acknowledge that it isn’t yet known how well uhf could cover New York City. The big question: How to shift to uhf? Here are some staff suggestions: (1) Announce all TV to go to uhf in, say, 5 years. (2) Draft a new all-uhf assignment table. (3) Grant no more vhfs in uhf -only cities. (4) Grant vhfs in a few markets where they’re badly needed but require them to simulcast on uhf. (5) Make all vhfs build uhfs and simulcast within about 3 years. (6) Ask Congress for new laws which would permit fast shift of vhfs to uhf without extensive hearings, court appeals and other due-process delays. As for other alternatives, the staff notes: (1) Govt, won’t give TV more vhf spectrum, so that’s dead. (2) Short-spaced vhf assignments don’t yield many new stations and they cut fringe service. (3) De-intermixture doesn’t offer major national expansion possibilities. It should be made clear that staff analyses such as these are starting points only. They by no means indicate what the Commissioners will eventually do. FCCs Spot Watchers: NAB Radio vp John F. Meagher, reported last week to the association’s radio members on the results of the informal FCC-NAB conference on the Commission’s spot-counting practices. Filling out the impressions we had gleaned (Vol. 16:48 p5), he reported: “The staff of the Commission employs certain processing tools which are applied in the review of renewal applications. One of these is the number of spot announcements. If the renewal application reveals more than a certain number of spots — ^roughly 1,000 [per week] — it is set aside for further staff review. “This does not mean that the application will be set for hearing merely because the number of spots exceeds a given number. Rather, it is used to ‘fiag’ the application for further review in all of its aspects, with particular reference to ‘promise’ vs. ‘performance’ . . . “This does not mean that every departure from the preceding application statements is to be regarded as important or material. Where a substantial change has occurred, however, reflecting a sharp difference in the number of announcements or in other aspects of programming, the Commission usually requests further explanation from the licensee . . . “The Commissioners indicated that one of the greatest problems in this area has been the failure of licensees to ‘tell their story’ adequately. By this is meant that adhering strictly to the form does not always give suflScient information upon which an informed judgment may be made. For this reason, it is indicated that in the very near future there will be a formal proposal to modify the existing renewal forms . . . “Finally, the Commissioners pointed out that while many informal inquiries of licensees have been made, very few have necessitated the formal 309(b) letter of the Communications Act. Moreover, even in these few cases, there have been factors involved other than a quantitative analysis of a station’s spot announcement policy.” Reasons for uhf CP cancellations (Vol. 16:48 p6) were spelled out by FCC in the text of its decision released last week: “We believe that none of the applicants herein — all of whom, at the time they obtained their construction permits, stated they would construct the subject station, and who now substantially state that they do no intend to commence construction — have demonstrated that their failure to construct was due to causes not under their control. The applicants have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that they could not have physically constructed their stations . . . Applicants propound arguments which inter alia, contain contentions bearing on matters of applicants’ business judgment and the availability of TV sets capable of receiving uhf signals. The former argument concerns matters solely within the business judgment of the individual applicant. The alleged non-availability of uhf receivers also involves the matter of business judgment, since it bears on the availability of an audience. In connection with the foregoing, we emphasize that the Commission is not compelling the applicants to construct facilities for which they have applied. On the other hand, we do not feel that it is in the public interest to have these construction permits outstanding, when the applicants have no intention of going ahead with construction in the near future. It is in the applicants’ choice to build or not. Since they do not choose to build and the reasons they have advanced do not involve causes beyond their control, their applications for further extensions of time within which to construct their stations should be denied.” Comrs. Hyde & Lee dissented.