Since last September, the F.C.C. has been deliberating on these comments and 500 others like them. It's now ready to announce approval of the proposed allocations, after which building can begin.
The joker is, of course, that allocations will probably be made for a limited time only: if they are not picked up by educators in a year or so, they'll be wide open for the commercial interests again.
The so-called television "freeze," instituted by the F.C.C. in 1946, has prevented actual licensing of new stations until the Commission could figure out which of the hundreds of applicants should have a chance. Reports are that the freeze will be lifted at the same time the tentative allocations are announced.
Future?????
Right now, it seems certain that no University in this area is going to stick its neck out and build a television station all by itself. But almost all have approved of the Council's actions so far, and have indicated they'll donate in the future. Though its officials aren't talking, it seems safe to predict that the actual station on Massachusetts' Channel 2 will be run by the Lowell group.
The other possibility might be state control, but the state has already once turned down its TV educational opportunity. A law authorizing the State's department of education to build a station failed to pass the House in early 1951. An estimated $500,000 for construction and $250,000 yearly maintenance crimped the measure.
John J. Desmond, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education, however, has gone on record as favoring the Lowell Institute's statements, and has promised "every cooperation in making this a success."
Even though Miss Freida Hennock, contacted in Washington, remarked to the CRIMSON: "You've got a lot of money at Harvard. Why don't you get busy and apply for your own station?", the University itself, according to Bailey, is better off as a member of the Lowell Institute. Less money is necessary and more recourses are available.
The University and the state consider themselves fortunate to have such an organization at hand, even if all it has been able to express so far is a desire to "secure funds ... and coordinate efforts." Especially in regard to the rest of the country, where educational TV is having tough sledding.
High Finance
Massachusetts is hardly alone in the problem of who's going to take over the actual television stations themselves. Though almost all college authorities and educational officials are in favor of educational TV, very few are going to shell out on their own hook.
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, where educators have filed comments supporting not just one, but a network of TV stations are probably the exception. Elsewhere, financial problems and the ever-present commercial interest menace are working hand in hand.
There is always the question of just how to make adult education palatable, by TV or any other method. The educators are trying to figure this one out; for example, the American Council on Education is sponsoring a five-day seminar on educational TV programming in New York this April, an institute planned in part by Dean Keppel of the Graduate School.
The commencement of actual television exclusively for non-commercial education is probably at least a year off in this area. It looks as if "Uncle Miltie" may be hogging the TV screen for some time to come.