-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The early '50s freeze on TV licenses - technology or politics?
- Thread starter ixnay
- Start date
Both, combined with incompetence on the part of the FCC.
The FCC initially allocated an insufficeint number of channels to provide for a competitive national service, especially in the congested northeastern part of the country. On top of that, the original allocations were done before VHF propagation was well understood, which meant that there was more interference between stations operating on the same channel in different cities than the FCC had anticipated. Finally, a "band sharing" system wherein some 2-way radio services were supposed to coexist with VHF TV broadcasters just didn't work.
The FCC had counted on the new TV service growing slowly after WWII, which would have allowed time for the FCC to fix problems as they appeared. However, the service took off faster than the FCC had planned for, and so all three of these problems quickly became apparent. In 1948, the FCC instituted a temporary freeze on new TV applications -- a freeze that was originally supposed to last just a few months, but ended up lasting for four years.
The FCC quickly concluded that additional channels were going to be needed, and that those additional channels could not be accomodated in the VHF spectrum -- which is how we ended up getting a separate UHF TV band. That was apparently decided pretty quickly. But how to integrate the new UHF band into our existing TV service...that's where the politics came in. One source of political pressure came from CBS, which wanted the new UHF TV band to be dedicated to color broadcasts.
But the biggest political confllict came over the fact that existing televisions would not be able to receive these new UHF channels without an adapter and a new UHF TV antenna -- which meant that UHF stations competing against VHF stations in the same city would be at a huge disadvantage. To avoid this problem, Dumont proposed that individual TV markets would be either all-VHF or all-UHF. NBC and other owners of existing VHF stations that might get shunted to UHF opposed this idea. And, of course, those VHF broadcasters who might get shifted to UHF screamed -- loudly -- to their congressmen.
Sorting out this particular mess was probably the biggest reason for the freeze dragging out. Unfortunately, the way that the FCC ultimately dealt with the problem of UHF stations being less able to compete was to pretend that the problem didn't exist. The FCC issued a table of allocations that mixed UHF and VHF stations in most cities -- and while those UHF stations came on the air quickly, they went off the air almost as quickly. By the late fifties, fewer than 100 UHF stations were left on the air, and those were typically in medium and small markets that had no or only one VHF stations.
It's a mistake on the part of the FCC that had serious effects on the industry -- it probably helped cable TV develop sooner and more extensively than would have been the case if the Dumont proposal had been implemented, since it resulted in many markets with less than a full complement of TV services. It killed Dumont and kept ABC from being competitive for many years -- and ensured that a fourth TV network couldn't be viable until 35 years later.
The FCC initially allocated an insufficeint number of channels to provide for a competitive national service, especially in the congested northeastern part of the country. On top of that, the original allocations were done before VHF propagation was well understood, which meant that there was more interference between stations operating on the same channel in different cities than the FCC had anticipated. Finally, a "band sharing" system wherein some 2-way radio services were supposed to coexist with VHF TV broadcasters just didn't work.
The FCC had counted on the new TV service growing slowly after WWII, which would have allowed time for the FCC to fix problems as they appeared. However, the service took off faster than the FCC had planned for, and so all three of these problems quickly became apparent. In 1948, the FCC instituted a temporary freeze on new TV applications -- a freeze that was originally supposed to last just a few months, but ended up lasting for four years.
The FCC quickly concluded that additional channels were going to be needed, and that those additional channels could not be accomodated in the VHF spectrum -- which is how we ended up getting a separate UHF TV band. That was apparently decided pretty quickly. But how to integrate the new UHF band into our existing TV service...that's where the politics came in. One source of political pressure came from CBS, which wanted the new UHF TV band to be dedicated to color broadcasts.
But the biggest political confllict came over the fact that existing televisions would not be able to receive these new UHF channels without an adapter and a new UHF TV antenna -- which meant that UHF stations competing against VHF stations in the same city would be at a huge disadvantage. To avoid this problem, Dumont proposed that individual TV markets would be either all-VHF or all-UHF. NBC and other owners of existing VHF stations that might get shunted to UHF opposed this idea. And, of course, those VHF broadcasters who might get shifted to UHF screamed -- loudly -- to their congressmen.
Sorting out this particular mess was probably the biggest reason for the freeze dragging out. Unfortunately, the way that the FCC ultimately dealt with the problem of UHF stations being less able to compete was to pretend that the problem didn't exist. The FCC issued a table of allocations that mixed UHF and VHF stations in most cities -- and while those UHF stations came on the air quickly, they went off the air almost as quickly. By the late fifties, fewer than 100 UHF stations were left on the air, and those were typically in medium and small markets that had no or only one VHF stations.
It's a mistake on the part of the FCC that had serious effects on the industry -- it probably helped cable TV develop sooner and more extensively than would have been the case if the Dumont proposal had been implemented, since it resulted in many markets with less than a full complement of TV services. It killed Dumont and kept ABC from being competitive for many years -- and ensured that a fourth TV network couldn't be viable until 35 years later.
DuMont's proposal was that the top 100 markets each be allocated four VHF channels (one each for CBS, NBC, ABC, and DuMont), and that additional UHF channels then be assigned to the largest cities as needed, as well as to smaller markets. This would have placed DuMont on an equal footing with the other three networks in most cities, but it also would have greatly displaced existing stations, thus the plan was never adopted.
I should add the FCC rewrite of the upstate New York allocation table in 1958 was probably more political. The FCC divided up station allocations in '52 based on a combination of technical issues and market size, and made several mistakes (most notably giving Rochester, Syracuse and Albany too few stations) that it had to correct by reshuffling the deck and changing the allocation table in markets along the Thruway between Buffalo and the Hudson River. Utica and Watertown didn't pick up any more allocations in the shuffle, though when they rewrote the table in 1958, WKTV in Utica had to move from 13 to 2, and WROC in Rochester and WHEN in Syracuse to do a straight channel swap (5 to 8 in Rochester, 8 to 5 in Syracuse), to allow Rochester and Syracuse to get an additional VHF station each and Albany/Schenectady/Troy to get two more VHFs, all of which were on the air by the fall of 1962.
The most idiotic move made by the FCC in dealing with the UHF spectrum was not requiring TV sets to carry it until 1964 which at the time the only way a UHF station could surivive was to be in a market with stations all in the UHF band. Had the FCC done that earlier, it is possible the experimental UHF stations CBS, NBC and DuMont had owned could have succeeded, making UHF viable in the 50s not the late 70s/early 80s. But no, the FCC has shown us over the years they're more concerned about the non-technical, almost trival aspects.
I should add the FCC rewrite of the upstate New York allocation table in 1958 was probably more political. The FCC divided up station allocations in '52 based on a combination of technical issues and market size, and made several mistakes (most notably giving Rochester, Syracuse and Albany too few stations) that it had to correct by reshuffling the deck and changing the allocation table in markets along the Thruway between Buffalo and the Hudson River. Utica and Watertown didn't pick up any more allocations in the shuffle, though when they rewrote the table in 1958, WKTV in Utica had to move from 13 to 2, and WROC in Rochester and WHEN in Syracuse to do a straight channel swap (5 to 8 in Rochester, 8 to 5 in Syracuse), to allow Rochester and Syracuse to get an additional VHF station each and Albany/Schenectady/Troy to get two more VHFs, all of which were on the air by the fall of 1962.
The most idiotic move made by the FCC in dealing with the UHF spectrum was not requiring TV sets to carry it until 1964 which at the time the only way a UHF station could surivive was to be in a market with stations all in the UHF band. Had the FCC done that earlier, it is possible the experimental UHF stations CBS, NBC and DuMont had owned could have succeeded, making UHF viable in the 50s not the late 70s/early 80s. But no, the FCC has shown us over the years they're more concerned about the non-technical, almost trival aspects.
ixnay said:
The Korean War halted the devlopement of color television in the only use of an post-WWII emergency war powers act (which expired in the 70's) that halted production of durable goods so that materials could be allocated for the war effort. I don't know if this has anything to do with it.
There was battle over commercial broadcasters and NCE (non-commercial educational/pre-PBS) stations over allotments. The NCE's at the time were getting UHF-only allotments, and they were wanting an equal piece of the VHF pie. This more likely had something to do with it.
The FCC at the time could have said hell with it, and made everyone (even those on the air at the time) go UHF just to avoid the battle.
My opinion is that political considerations greatly inhibited the development of UHF TV in the 1950s and well into the 60s, with early owners of VHF stations exerting huge pressure to limit development of UHF competition. But, obviously there was a technical component as well. My question is, what was the maximum power allowed for UHF at the time? I thought I read somewhere it was only about 360,000 watts. Was that an artifical ceiling, or was that the best that equipment of the day could produce? I think of WNAO-TV/28 in Raleigh NC, the first TV station in that market and a station I remember well from my childhood. From all accounts, WNAO got a good start in Raleigh with a very high adoption there. WTVD/11 in Durham, about 25 miles away, came on soon after with ABC, leaving WNAO with CBS and NBC. Finally in 1956 WRAL/5 came on in Raleigh, leaving WNAO with CBS, the #1 network. The third VHF was WUNC/4, an educational channel, so WNAO had CBS to itself. The problem was, Durham was also fairly well covered by WFMY/2 from Greensboro, also CBS. So while Raleigh watched WNAO for CBS, Durham watched WFMY, and WNAO seemed to have no way to put a strong signal over Durham and it was apparent by this time that Raleigh/Durham would be a unified market. WRAL and WTVD moved quickly to build tall towers southeast of Raleigh to also cover the Fayetteville area, stopping development of UHF (WFLB/18) in that city. If WNAO could have broadcast with a higher power, say a million watts, this story might have played out differently,but I don't think that power was allowed until the early 60s. Was such a high power not technically feasible before that time? In any event, WNAO threw in the towel in 1958, leaving Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville with only 2 commercal stations for many years.
fortmill said:
I believe the UHF power limit was 1000kw at the beginning. I know that by 1966 the limit had been increased to 5000kw - but as of that date no station was using even as much as 1000kw.
The most powerful stations on the air in 1966:
708kw: WKBS-48 Burlington, NJ (now WGTW, kinda):
678kw: WMBD-31 Peoria, IL
617kw: WCVE-23 Richmond, VA & WLVT-39 Allentown, PA
The most powerful construction permits:
1038kw: WJDO-58 Rosenberg, TX (yes, a W call in Texas. I don't think this one was ever built.)
1000kw: WJKS-17 Jacksonville, FL (now WCWJ)
1000kw: WJMR-20 New Orleans, LA (I think this merged with WVUE-12 to become today's WVUE-8, ceding channel 12 to PBS station WYES)
The most powerful applications:
1345kw: channel 26, Houston
1290kw: channel 26, Houston
1230kw: channel 29, Dallas
1000kw: channel 50, Washington; channel 20, Gainesville FL; channel 50, Chicago; channel 16, Olney IL (now WUSI); channel 58, Topeka; channel 31, Lorain OH (now WUAB on ch. 43)
Except for WUSI and WUAB I don't think any of these were ever granted.
UHF stations of less than 100kw were quite common in 1966. Indeed, UHFs of less than 10kw were not unusual - and there were a few with powers measured in hundreds of watts. For example, KSLN-TV channel 34 in Salina, Kansas, an ABC affiliate running a scorching 724 watts from an antenna at the mindboggling elevation of 150 feet. No big surprise that KSLN-TV didn't survive...
K
KML0224
Guest
Just for reference, who was the first 5 million watt (visual ERP) UHF station? WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford has been 5 million watts since its sign on in September of 1984, but I know they're not the first to do so.
Thanks, w9wi, for some really good historical information. I am really amazed that big city stations, such as Philly's WKBS, broadcast with such limited power. I guess 17 and 29 made do with even less. No wonder many UHF stations had a hard time, even in the 60s. It is interesting that WCVE in Richmond was one of the most powerful in 1966. I used my grandmother's old UHF converter, which she gave to me after WNAO went off, to view WCVE. Reception with an indoor antenna was poor---I thought it was because of a low broadcast signal! Regarding Kevin's question about the first 5 megawatt Tv station, WCCB in Charlotte claimed that distinction when they moved from channel 36 to 18 in 1968. They built a tall tower and claimed to be the world's most powerful TV station. That only lasted a few years---the owner, notoriously cheap, probably didn't want to pay the huge electric bill.
genius said:
The FCC arguably didn't have the power to mandate UHF tuners prior to 1964. Their authority to require televisions be able to receive all channels came into existence because of legislation that was passed and signed into law a year or so earlier.
Interestingly, this same law is the one that the FCC used to assert its authority to recently require all televisions (with the exception of those that lack any tuner) be capable of receiving digital broadcasts.
I remember President Kennedy signing the legislation which required UHF tuners be installed in all TV sets, I think about 1962.---He stated UHF would help to improve the quality of TV programing, then known as "A Vast Wasteland" by providing more competition. In the late 70s UHF broadcasters went back to the FCC and asked that UHF tuner standards be increased so that they were equivilent to VHF. At the time, they were not as sensitive as VHF and worked like a radio dial, meaning one had to search back and forth for the station. Another concern was that most TVs had VHF antennas permanently attached or installed in the set, but UHF antennas, usually a loop of wire, easily fell off the set and was lost. All of these concerns were met---UHF tuners were made to click through the channels (all 70) just llike VHF, and tuners were required to be more sensitive. Manufacturers stopped installing ANY antenna on their sets, requiring purchasers to buy their own antennas.
How did stations that changed channels (like the upstate NY ones genius listed) promote the switch? Did they air a "celebration", like a commemorative telecast? Or did WKTV just not bother with educating Uticans and simply let them go on a wild goose chase one morning after finding channel 13 snowy all of a sudden? 
ixnay
ixnay
I know in Chicago WBKB did it with an ad "From Channel 4 to Channel 7." And WBBM did a small ad too. CBS now on Channel 2.
Some things seem political, like Washington DC and Los Angeles NOT having a VHF station reserved for educational, where the FCC seemed pretty adament about it elsewhere.
But some allocations were stupid, did they really think a channel 7 could go in Wilmington, with a channel 7 in New York City and Washington DC?
I imagine once DTV takes hold the FCC will have to a bunch of changes, well a few anyway.
From my readings it seemed the government was pretty much set on two networks NBC and CBS and open to everything else, from community TV channels to pay TV.
But it isn't hard to see how certain decisions were made on behalf of the politcians.
Some things seem political, like Washington DC and Los Angeles NOT having a VHF station reserved for educational, where the FCC seemed pretty adament about it elsewhere.
But some allocations were stupid, did they really think a channel 7 could go in Wilmington, with a channel 7 in New York City and Washington DC?
I imagine once DTV takes hold the FCC will have to a bunch of changes, well a few anyway.
From my readings it seemed the government was pretty much set on two networks NBC and CBS and open to everything else, from community TV channels to pay TV.
But it isn't hard to see how certain decisions were made on behalf of the politcians.
Mark said:
...but it was the station WBKB/4 that was bought out by CBS (their network) and became WBBM-TV/2. Channel 7 had already been operating as WENR-TV and took on the WBKB calls and studio site a few months after the WBBM-TV studio move from State & Lake to McClurg Court...
...I'm sure that when WTMJ-TV/3 Milwaukee moved to Channel 4 (as a direct result of WBKB/WBBM-TV's move from 4 to 2), they did extensive promotion in their parent newspaper, The Milwaukee Journal, and on WTMJ Radio. When WCAN-TV/25, the CBS affiliate in Milwaukee, and WOKY-TV/19, a former ABC and DuMont affiliate, were consolidated into WXIX/19 by CBS, there were a lot of ads published, one of which is on Dick Nitelinger's Milwaukee TV site; when the FCC reallocated WXIX from 19 to 18, CBS did ads then too...
In 1948 the FCC proposed a new plan to add additional TV channels to markets -- and more markets. It did so at the time it took channel 1 away from TV and gave it to land-mobile. How might it do that? It quietly reduced the separation between stations on the same channel from 200 to 150 miles, as well as that between those on adjacent chanels. Interference resulted.
A big part of the motivation was to give NYC seven full-power stations. At the time the Commisssion promulgated new rules for TV in 1945, and re-allocated the VHF band, it had three classes of stations. NYC had five full-power stations and two lower-power "community" ones. (not unlike the current -LP or -CA stations)
What should've been a simple rewrite of the Table of Channel Assignments with increased separation distances became much more complicated. The initial hearing concluded that UHF would have to be used. Color complicated things, as did educational reservations (no channels were reserved for educational use at that time.), and the Commission looked at those issues first.
It was not a happy time for the Commission. probably the biggest mistake they made was internixing VHF and UHF in the same markets.
http://www.milwaukee-horror-hosts.com/MilwTV.html
A big part of the motivation was to give NYC seven full-power stations. At the time the Commisssion promulgated new rules for TV in 1945, and re-allocated the VHF band, it had three classes of stations. NYC had five full-power stations and two lower-power "community" ones. (not unlike the current -LP or -CA stations)
What should've been a simple rewrite of the Table of Channel Assignments with increased separation distances became much more complicated. The initial hearing concluded that UHF would have to be used. Color complicated things, as did educational reservations (no channels were reserved for educational use at that time.), and the Commission looked at those issues first.
It was not a happy time for the Commission. probably the biggest mistake they made was internixing VHF and UHF in the same markets.
http://www.milwaukee-horror-hosts.com/MilwTV.html
ercjncpr said:
The 2009 change will affect a lot fewer viewers.
Firstly, anyone with cable or satellite will continue to receive the stations they're receiving now, on the same TV, on the same channel. Nothing is going to move.
Secondly, if you're watching an over-the-air digital signal, the station will transmit data that tells your TV what channel to tell you you're watching. You might punch "4" on the remote control, see your TV tell you you're watching channel 4; all the graphics on the station may say channel 4, and the anchors may tell you you're watching Channel 4 News -- but the station will actually be transmitting on, and your TV will be tuned to, channel 28. While the station will, in fact, move from channel 4 to channel 28 on February 17, 2009, as far as you, the viewer, is concerned, the station is still on channel 4.
With respect to the power run back in the early days, neither RCA or GE had anything above 1kw TPO at that time...RCA Broadcast News makes mentions of early UHFs going on air with the 1kw rig, but making sure they had addition room in the plant to add the 10kw amplifiers that were coming in 1953 or 1954.
Texas Tuner
Texas Tuner
Yeah, Directv is educating consumers alright. If you were to believe their advertising, the only way you can recieve HD programing is to subscribe to their service, and Dish is almost as bad. Really amounts to false advertising as far as I'm concerned and I don't know why cable has not challenged it. A headline in this morning's aol homepage heralds that HDTV programing is available FOR FREE, ota. How shocking is that??? The article goes on to interview people who recieve HD over the air, and how shocked all their friends are, almost as if it was illegal. Broadcast stations are partly responsible for this, spending millions on new equipment, then not even lifting a finger to explain to their viewers how the new programing is recieved. It amazes me that local stations often present several new digital channels, then neglect to tell viewers the channels are availbale OTA. Instead, they tell viewers, for example, that "NBC Weather Plus" is available on such in such digital cable 555," never mentioning it is also available OTA, on thousands of digital ready TVs. Less than two years till the digital changeover? It may be a rough ride....
- Status