NAB reports (Mar-Dec 1933)

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.

The National Association of Broadcasters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING ★ * ★ ★ * WASHINGTON, D. C. PHILIP G. LOUCKS, Managing Director 7 Vo I X No-3-L NAB REPORTS Copyright, 1933, The National Association of Broadcasters PROCEEDINGS SECOND ANNUAL MEETING Engineering Section NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS June 26, 1933, Chicago, Illinois The Second Annual Meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters was held in the West Room of the Hotel Sherman on Monday, June 26th, at 10:15 A. M. CHAIRMAN J. A. CHAMBERS : ‘ ‘ The Second Annual Meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters is now in session. Mr. Loueks, Managing Director of the N. A. B. has a few comments to make. ” MR. LOUCKS: “I will not make a speech, but I think I should point out and make clear to you exactly the powers of the Engineering Section of the N. A. B. This is the second annual meeting of the Engineering Section; the first meeting was held last year. Sections are not provided for in our constitution and we consider them officially as open committee meetings. Therefore, such action as you may take and such resolutions as you may adopt will be properly referred to either the Board of Directors or the general membership. The section has no power to bind the Associa¬ tion. Binding resolutions can be adopted only by the Board and the membership. I simply want to point out that any resolutions adopted will be directed either to the Board or the membership as a whole. That is all I have to say.” CHAIRMAN: ‘‘We will go right into the published pro¬ gram. We are fortunate in having with us Mr. Nelson of the Bell Laboratories. Mr. Nelson has been at several meetings at which we have discussed the need for Standards in Broad¬ cast Practice.” STANDARDS IN BROADCAST PRACTICE By E. L. NELSON MR. NELSON: “Gentlemen, I have discussed this subject on numerous occasions and I have no doubt that many of you know just what I am going to say. This matter is one that can hardly be over emphasized at the present stage of broadcasting. It is a highly complex undertaking which involves one function which is performed by one agency and another by an entirely different agency. Technical requirements are essential to the successful progress of that undertaking. The problem of broadcasting is such a complex undertaking that the need for these systems requirements should follow logically. The method by which they should be brought about is by building up an organization through commercial agencies and arriving at that sort of a technical organization that we need. I think that one of the difficulties arises from the fact that trans¬ mitting people, for example, are interested primarily in putting programs on the air and receiving people in picking up pro¬ grams on the air. In other words, we have looked at our own particular function without regard to the overall job we have today. The program sponsors do not pay you to put anything on the air except what they are really interested in doing as advertisers. Your job from a technical standpoint is to build equipment and system which will enable you to operate ma¬ chines scattered all over the country. We are going to have to do a good job. ‘ ‘ Since this is a cooperative undertaking I feel it is very fortunate that we have already started along the right lines in organizing ourselves in this important work. Most of you, I presume, know that the committee, the Engineering Section of the N.i A. B. and the Broadcast Committee of the I. R. E. have already met and agreed upon a program in this field and have held several meetings. I think the fact that we are making progress is a very happy circumstance and promises early progress in this important field. Probably the most important thing that has been holding this matter up and causing slow progress to be made, in my opinion, is the fact that a good many people who have been closely in touch with the situation, who have seen the commercial aspects of it, haven’t been sold on the approval of the thing. They have taken the position that systems requirements will do no good. I do not quite subscribe to that viewpoint. I think that its purposes hold a little more by the receiver people than the transmitter people. In saying that I may be making a rather loose statement but have in mind the further discussion of this and we can clear the viewpoints on the subject. “Another aspect in the matter which may be brought up by the transmitter people is their opinion that that is why we have a Federal Radio Commission. I do not believe it is entirely the job of the F. R. C. I believe if we are to make progress this is a job for us to do. Whatever is done along these lines, the expenditure of sums of money and selling the public on changes, is evident. If money is going to be spent you ought to have definite ideas on how it is going to be spent. “Referring to practical suggestions with the idea of simply indicating to you some of the possibilities in this direction. I want to inform you first of all of the tremendous success of the regulation recently imposed by the Commission requiring fifty cycles and the degree to which that has improved beat note interference. The history of that perhaps you do not know. I think it is quite fair to say that the idea was brought to the attention of the industry by a report prepared by the I. R. E. Broadcast Committee in response to some inquiries which were made by Dr. Dellinger when he was acting as Chief Engineer of the Commission. It was the recommendation of the committee, after a rather detailed study of the matter that there would be no improvement by increasing the regula¬ tion of the requirement below fifty cycles. At that time we advanced the suggestion with considerable temerity because there was considerable doubt commercially of the equipment that was to make it practical to impose fifty cycles. The report was published and I was considerably concerned be¬ cause a number of people who had a right to an opinion in the matter came to me and told me it was ridiculous to im¬ pose a fifty cycle requirement. I do not want to claim all the credit for the I. R. E. but at the time I did not think the Commission would ever have the ability to impose the fifty cycle requirement, but it was done after many hearings and from then on you all know the history. That is an example of what can be done after a study in the proper direction. We will have to approach several other things in the same manner. “I am very much concerned about the matter of band widths. It is a fact that at the present time you cannot sell broadcasting equipment to most broadcasters unless you . Page 163 .