Broadcasters’ news bulletin (July 1932-Mar 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.

ICC DISCLAIMS RATE JURISDICTION (Continued) 2 "Can the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Act reading: 'The provisions of this Act shall also apply to such * * * * transmission of intelligence' he construed as meaning that such transmission, whether performed hy a telephone company or anybody else, is subject to the Act? The answer seems to be in the negative, for otherwise purely private transmissions, such as are carried on by radio amateurs, would be included. We think the Act is properly cons¬ trued as covering the transmission of intelligence only when conducted by the common carriers specified in Section l(3) of the Act. "As the present method of radio broadcasting was unknown at the time of the passage of the transportation act, by which the transmission of intelli¬ gence by wireless operation was inclrided in the Act, we are of the opinion that it vies not included in the common carriers over which our jurisdiction extends. The mere fact that the subject-matter in question may be within the literal language of the statute is not sufficient to bring it within its intent . "There is an additional reason to support our viewpoint herein expressed, and to strengthen our conclusion as to what is and what is not a common car¬ rier of intelligence as defined in Section 1(3) of the Act. In any 'trans¬ mission' heretofore considered, and in any probably existing at the time of the passage of the Ra.dio Act of 1927 there seems to be implied the idea of a definite sender and a definite receiver. Going, for analogy, to the trans¬ mission of intelligence by wire, we doubt if it would be insisted, or if it coull be successfully insisted that the mere clicking off of a message from one or more central stations would constitute a transmission of intelligence, and this is not based simply on the fact that such transmission is ordinarily in Morse code. There is the further element involved that the respective messages are to be delivered to the contemplated receivers of the messages. The boy in the blue uniform v/ho rings the doorbell and who brings the message itself, or his counterpart or substitute, the telephone or mail, has a part in the transmission. Unless one has a radio receiving set properly attuned, he will never get and is not expected to get the intelligence, whether it be instruction, enterte,inment, or advertising, sent out from the broadcasting sta¬ tion. We do not believe this new art and practice, unknown at the time of the passage of the transportation act, of simply putting on the air or ether this instruction, entertainment, or advertisement, to that part of the public who may, by their receiving sets and antennae, go out to get this matter, was ever meant by Congress to be included in any act conferring express or implied power upon this Commission. It can not be presumed that the Congress was at¬ tempting to regulate a mere potential service, one that might or might not be developed, and particularly a service distinct and different in character from the methods of transmission of intelligence then known, i.e. messages by wire¬ less from a definite sendfer to a definite receiver. This conclusion is sup¬ ported by Section l(5) of the Act v/herein transmission of intelligence as a message or communication by wire or wireless is divided into day, night, and the other classes of messages." Commissioners Aitchison and Mahaffie were of the opinion that it "is suf¬ ficient for the disposition of this complaint that it appear that (l) the de¬ fendant is not a common carrier engaged in the transmission of intelligence or (2) that the service in question is not transmission of intelligence, with¬ in the intendment of Section l(l) and (3) of the Act. That companies engaged