Broadcasters’ news bulletin (June-Dec 1931)

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.

June 20, 1931 JMSICY OUTLIIIES PROBLEMS The diligence of commercial "broadcasters, the arguments for and against high "^ower, and the shortcomings of G-eneral Orders 92 and 102 were disc\:issed hy C. M. Jansky, consulting radio engineer, Washington, D. C. in an address "before the Institute for Education "by Radio at Columbus, Ohio, last week. "I speak as the result of sole eleven years' intimate and constant contact with the problems of educational broadcasting stations, commercial "broadcasting stations, and the problems of radio regulation, when I state that the basic reason why the most desirable radio broadcast station assignments are occupied by socalled commercially owned stations is the fact that the owners of these stations were more far-sighted, more aggressive, and more willing to finance stations than our educators," Frof, Jansky said, "One hears frequently such statements as ‘There are not enough cleared chan¬ nels,* or from others the conclusion that 'There are too many cleared channels,' or 'Cleared channels should be abolished altogether.* Frequently those who make such statements do not appreciate that such pronouncements involve questions of public policy determining what groups of people should have service and what groups should not. To illustrate, bccaiise of heterodyne interference at night, the service ranges of regional and local stations are severely limited. On the other hand, clear channel stations will be listened to at far greater distances, particularly by those not close to any station. It therefore follows that in general, listeners considerably removed from broadcasting stations such as many in rural districts, secure practically all of their night time reception from distant cleared channel stations. Now if cleared channels were eliminated and regionals or locals substituted, ovbiously these stations would be in toivns. Therefore, those who argue that cleared channels should be eliminated and duplic¬ ated channel assignments substituted, are knowingly or unknowingly argueing that in general remote rural communities are entitled to less night time service, and urban communities are entitled to more. A similar consideration of the mechanics of broadcast transmission will show that, assuming we are to have forty cleared channels as at present, an increase in power of all clear channel stations to 50 KW will result in far greater benefit than damage on the basis of reasonable as¬ sumptions with respect to coverage. On the other hand, it can be shown that from an engineering standpoint there are instances where there is little technical justification for keeping a channel clear at night for a station of only 5 KW power "The most recent and most important Commission interpretations of the Davis Amendment are General Orders 92 and 102. These orders, among other things, set forth a unit system which olaces particular unit values on stations using various power assignments, then on the basis of an arbitrary assumption with respect to the total number of units available for operation without interference the Com¬ mission has determined which zones and states are over quota and which are under quota. It is not my purpose to condemn the passage of General Orders 92 and 102, It must be remembered that the passage of the Davis amendment imposed an exceed¬ ingly difficult interpretative duty upon the Commission. However, since these orders purport to be correct interpretations of the Davis amendment and since the enforcement of these orders is bound to stand in the way of changes in broadcast assignments which from an engineering standpoi t might be highly desirable, it is essential that we make some effort to determine just what the quota system measures if anything,"