Broadcasting (Jan - June 1940)

to carry out the pickup. Chairman »iiej?Fly queried, "When did it become ttatoo late? About March 23?" The iie|RCA counsel replied that there was i"no intent to imply that the Commission is holding up the buildZijing of the relay," adding that RCA wajiis just waiting "like a stocking oiomanufacturer" for a market for xits projected service, i Questioned by Commissioner ■Thompson, Mr. Wozencraft stated that, as he remembered, the application for a relay CP was prepared after the January hearing and was about ready for filing with the FCC in late March. He added that it I likely would have been in by this i time had it not been for the present ien,f hearing. The decision against filing the application was made between March 20 and 25, he conjectured. Pursuing the matter further, Commissioner Thompson questioned RCA's attitude in looking for financial return before constructing the relay facilities. Mr. Wozencraft responded that he was not talking about advertising contracts, but '8® about getting authority to charge for relaying broadcasts from city to city. The commissioner countered '"f ■ with a query as to whether Mr. ™* Sarnoff's statements regarding the inauguration telecast could be "more for publicity" than facts. Mr. Wozencraft observed the whole matter boiled down to a question of whether there was any sense in building a common carrier facility without th^ authority to charge for f its use. Citing RCA's January testimony, Mr. Wozencraft quoted, "If limited commercial operation goes through, steps will be taken to construct relay facilities between New York and one or two other cities. If limited commercial does not come, there would be no support for such a system." He said he felt that if commercialization of television broadcasting is permitted, the FCC also may authorize payment for use of a common carrier, such as the relay, to transmit the visual programs. Would Compete With Coaxial Cable Chairman Fly asked how such a relay could be classed as a common carrier. Mr. Wozencraft replied by pointing out that it would operate in competition with the coaxial cable now connecting New York and Philadelphia and that it would be available to all users on a firstcome-first-served basis. Chairman Fly asked if the situation wasn't really that one channel is planned for use by NBC and the other added simply to make it a common carrier. The RCA counsel denied this. Commissioner Thompson observed that he had been "prompted compellingly" in approving the Feb. 29 order by RCA's apparent plan to develop inter-city service via wire as indicated in its January testimony. Meanwhile, and "without announcing to the FCC", RCA had changed its mind in favor of relay broadcasting, he remarked, adding that his attitude might have been changed had he been advised before the Feb. 29 decision. The FCC member and RCA counsel had another exchange shortly afterward, centering on a definition of "limited and full commercialization". Commissioner Thompson maintained flatly that limited commercialization extended only to participation by an advertiser in the costs of program production. while full commercialization included this item along with a charge for the actual broadcasting. Mr. Wozencraft agreed that this definition applied to standard broadcasting, but that other factors entered into the term's application in the television field. Chairman Fly questioned Mr. Engstrom closely on the context of a letter dated Feb. 29, 1940, written by him to Mr. Bingley "to make RCA's position on television and television standards clear". Pointing out that although the letter states specifically in one place that standards should be kept flexible "to the fullest possible extent". Chairman Fly asked Mr. Engstrom if he was not in effect working against other proposed standards than RMA's when, in another part of the letter, he declared that "the proponents of changes in these approved standards must of necessity bear the burden of proof that such changes would effect a substantial improvement in the service to the public and that a change ... is warranted". Pointing out that he had "studied and restudied" the letter before sending it, and that it had been read by other RCA officials, Mr. Engstrom declared that he did not intend to convey that impression. Can Build Receivers Under Other Standards The April 12 session was marked by frequent interruptions by Chairman Fly as he attempted to solidify policy pronouncements of RCA through Col. Davis, Mr. Wozencraft and Mr. Schairer. Opening the session, he asked point blank if RCA executives, including President Sarnoff, knew of the representations made at both 1940 television hearings that RCA does not favor fixing definite standards now. After Mr. Wozencraft had stated that it was his "impression" that Mr. Sarnoff and others did know, Mr. Schairer stated definitely that RCA, including Mr. Sarnoff, does not favor fixing standards. Col. Davis then read into the record a statement on behalf of RCA declaring that although its engineering staff subscribed to the majority opinion that the RMA proposals "represent the best set of standards with which to start commercial television operation in the United States", RCA is prepared to build receivers capable of receiving television programs broadcast under other standards than RMA's. RMA Standards Held Best by Test "The RCA is using these standards (RMA) because it believes they incorporate the best features that have been developed in the major television laboratories of the United States, England, German and the rest of the world," he commented. "After years of experimentation and practical operation, we believe that television products built under these standards are superior in performance. In our opinion they will give the public a larger measure of satisfaction than if built under any other standards that may be proposed in the present state of the art, within the 6mc. channel which the FCC has allocated for television operation. "During the course of the present hearings the suggestion has been made that television receivers be maniafactured that would be able to receive from television transmitters operated under other standards as well as under those of RMA. The RCA does not believe that adoption of such a suggestion would prove to be of advantage either from an engineering, economic or public service standpoint. "Nevertheless, if the FCC licenses transmitters to broadcast television programs to the public on standards in addition to those now in use, and will specify what such standards are to be, RCA is prepared now to build television receivers so that they will also receive television programs from such transmitters. RCA hopes this offer will help the Commission to overcome the present deadlock which is retarding the progress of a new and promising industry and thus create employment for idle men and idle money, on a wide, competitive basis." Fly Repeats All Sets Must Get All Signals Commenting on Col. Davis' statement, Chairman Fly stated, "We all realize it is important that all receivers be able to receive all signals transmitted. Of course, the primary function of the FCC is to see that adequate transmission standards are adopted, and it becomes essential that the television standards be so developed and established to reach all receivers." He added that it seemed "pretty clear" that the FCC will not allow any "hodge-podge situation" to develop in respect to standards. Upon resumption of Mr. Engstrom's examination, questioning centered around the possible complications of use of the proposed "common carrier relay" by transmitters employing different standards. DuMont Counsel Roberts held that a situation of "confusion" would result among receivers, since receiver operators would necessarily need to develop a measure of tuning expertness in knowing when and how to adapt their receivers to the varying standards of individual programs. Mr. Engstrom maintained that "confusion" could be eliminated without much trouble. Carrying the matter further, Mr. Roberts declared that RCA, by installing a flexible pulse generator, such as that of DuMont's, on its transmitter, would be able to do everything it can with its present "inflexible" synchronizing pulse and also accommodate other systems. He added that installing the "little black box" and making other "very slight" alterations in the transmitter would take only a few days. The RMA meetings popped up again when Mr. Wozencraft declared he was challenging the representations made by Mr. Grimditch, of Philco, to the RMA television committee and requested that he be called to testify. He explained that he was taking this action after examining the stenographic report of the meeting, which he alleged showed "no basis" for the Grimditch statements. Picking up the matter in turn, Chairma;. Fly then "wondered" if RCA was being "fair and frank" with the Commission in testifying on one hand in favor of flexible standards and on the other hand holding in its RMA participation that the burden of proof lies entirely with the proposer of new standards. Col. Davis maintained that the statement in Mr. Engstrom's letter meant, specifically. that when one member of a group such as RMA recommends that the whole group change its views, he must bear the burden of proof. Chairman Fly answered that the FCC disapproves such an agreement because "that is not a proper function of RMA and does not reflect a proper attitude in the industry", in view of the FCC's duty to consider new developments as they arise. He added that the FCC asks the industry not to make the setting of standards impossible. With his examination resuming, Mr. Engstrom said he considered color television "a long way in the future" and that it has no place in 6-mc. channels. Listing various suggested standards of operation, he stated in effect that in general varying changes and combinations could be accommodated in set construction at added costs ranging from $3 to $40, exclusive of new cathode ray tubes that might be needed, depending on the system. Field Tests Needed In Fixing Standards Following the noon recess April 12, Mr. Wozencraft suspended further direct examination of Mr. Engstrom to allow cross-examination. Questioned by Mr. Dempsey, he explained that although he does not favor fixing standards now, "it is only because of the deadlock". He said he doesn't know how soon standards should be fixed, since any fixing of standards necessarily must follow field tests "which we have found quite a lengthy process". Mr. Engstrom agreed there should be a popular choice before the FCC sets standards, although he commented that, as an engineer, he had hoped the standards problem could be settled on an engineering basis. Given a choice, as an engineer, between the 441-30 standard and the 507-line 30-frame standard, he would prefer the latter, adding by way of explanation that this did not mean he was not satisfied with the 441-line standard. DuMont Counsel Roberts precipitated considerable discussion when he pointed to RCA's repeated allusion to its $10,000,000 expenditure in video development and observed that he understood several million had been returned "from large sales to foreign countries". His observation carried out an earlier inquiry into the presence of foreign government representatives in RCA factories. He held that these large foreign orders, if based on a standard at or near 441 lines, might account for RCA's favoring the 441-line standard, since it would lend itself to standard production. Chairman Fly declared that returns, if any, from research artivities of RCA should be revealed in order to yield RCA's research expenditures as either net or gross at the $10,000,000 level. At this point RCA Counsel Wozencraft half rose in his chair in protest as he charged that there was "a DuMont smear campaign against RCA." Col. Davis shortly afterward explained that RCA had entered into an agreement whereby a group of Russian engineers were allowed to visit the RCA factory for instruction. However, he pointed out, this applied particularly to radio and not to television. He added that RCA's attitude in the matter was that it could not sell its products to Russia and get its money out of that country very easily. BROADCASTING • Broadcast Advertising April 15, 1940 • Page 85