Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

2-TELEVISION DIGEST JULY 8, 1983 essential pre-conditions for uhf success some years from now can be urged as having reversed overnight all the experience of uhf operators faced with competition from 2 vhf stations. It may be argued that nothing should be done which would seem to reflect adversely on the viability of uhf now that the Commission is once again pushing for expansion of uhf operations. This concern is imderstandable — if a little late. . . . "The chances of really extensive implementation of the hundreds of idle commercial uhf allocations would seem best at a point some 7 or 8 years hence when the all-channel legislation will have resulted in a substantial percentage of homes being able to receive uhf signals. I cannot see how those chances could be impaired by authorizing 7 interim vhf stations at short spacing, with the requirement that they run a concurrent uhf operation and then shift over to uhf-only at the end of 7 years." Cox used some pretty brusque language on his colleagues; you can get copy of full text from him. ABC presented many of same arguments Cox used, in its petition for reconsideration — which includes a comprehensive history of allocations. ABC again promised it would give greater compensation to drop-in stations which would operate simultaneously on uhf. • • • • FCC meanwhile gave another of its periodic prods to non-operating uhf grantees. It asked 42 commercial & 9 non-commercial grantees to indicate "the present status of your organization, your physical plant, and your plans with respect to future operation of the station." Usually, after such a nudge, several CP-holders decide to return their grants. It will be interesting to see if passage of all-channel bill and ups<5t-downs of vhf drop-ins makes a difference. CLEAR-CHANNEL DECISION STANDS-UNLESS: FCC plans to stick to its dear-channel AM decision— to grant new Class II stations on 13 clear channels — despite Rep. Harris's (D-Ark.) strong hints that it should wait. Only another major Congressional mandate, such as passage of a House resolution again, would persuade Commission to hold off (Vol. 3:26 p4). FCC last week answered Harris's letter. It's understood that Commission told him it still believes its decision is good, that move will give much-needed service to areas now poorly covered — while cutting out relatively little current coverage. Harris had asked FCC what it was doing about higher power for clears. Commission noted that WLW Cincinnati has asked for 750 kw and that petitions for rule-making to permit higher power ore pending; FCC said it expects to act on them shortly. Harris also wanted to know whether higher power will be possible if channels ore duplicated — and Commission told him hikes would be possible on a number of clear channels. Question now is whether Harris will again seek legislative action to forestall new grants on clears. COMMERCIALS NO. 1 TOPIC IN FCC MAILS; "Overcommercialization" has token over top sp>ot in mail attraction at FCC's complaints & compliance div. Commission's proposed rule-making to limit commercials (Vol. 3:20 p6) has displaced cases of Pacifica Foundation & Dr. Carl McIntyre's shortwave station, heaviest mail-pullers in recent months: (1) Stations are vehement about ceiling, attack proposal as unwarranted move into private enterprise, charge that it's first foothold in program control. Small-market stations are particularly upset, asserting that retailers in their markets can't afford to pay much for spots — so that ceiling would create severe hardship. (2) Letters from Congressmen, speaking for station constituents, denoimce proposal as unjustified govt, intervention. (3) Most of mail from public favors proposal, stating that industry self-regulation hasn't worked. Some letters, apparently stimulated by station editorials, ore critical of FCC. Commission has even heard from class of 11th graders.