Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1943)

12/14/43 "There are, of course, many additional problems of a technical nature to be solved before we will be in a position to adopt new standards. In television the allocation problem ie foremost in our minds because, in addition to interference problems, we know that the present 18 channels and the standards governing this service are inadequate for an efficient nation-wide competitive system of television broadcasting. In my opinion, we should have at least twice this number of channels. The same is true of FU broadcasting in the band from 42 to 50 Me, which is sufficient for only 5 non-commercial educational broadcast channels and 35 commer¬ cial channels. Considering the problem of adjacent channel inter¬ ference and the geographical separation required for co-channel operation, it is not unreasonable to ask for at least twice the number of channels for these services. "In considering these post-war broadcasting services we must also plan the necessary relay channels for network programs. It is ray understanding that considerable advancement has been made since Pearl Harbor in developing frequencies above 300,000 kc for the distribution of such programs; also, the same networks may just as easily carry telegraph and telephone messages and compete with the services now furnished by the wire carriers. This will involve major questions of policy and may require amendments to the Com¬ munications Act. We know, for example, that these relay stations will be installed on towers which will be spaced from thirty to fifty miles apart. The transmitter for each channel of communica¬ tion will be of very low power, perhaps only a fraction of one watt. Interference will be minimized and efficiency increased through the use of directional beams with the result that the same frequency may be utilized in many sections of the country. There is no reason why this nationwide network should not also carry network programs for standard broadcasting, FM, facsimile, and private telegraph and telephone circuits for the press, stockbrokers, and agencies that usually lease private wire facilities. Who should be granted the privilege of operating this system? Should it be competitive with the telephone and telegraph services which now operate as monopolies in their respective fields? Should there be competitive radio net¬ works, thereby necessitating a forest of towers along the same route? Should the company or companies operating the radio network also be permitted to operate terminal facilities at the subscribers* offices? Should the chain broadcasting companies be permitted to own and operate their own radio networks? These are but a few of the questions which will confront the Commission when, as, and if materials and manpower again become available for the production of civilian equipment, "It has been predicted that these radio networks will be extended internationally to carry television and aural programs and message traffic all over the world. Although we may be fairly cer¬ tain that such networks will not be extended beyond the Western Hemisphere or even to South America for some time to come, the technical considerations should not be overlooked when planning our own domestic services. There is much to be gained by allocating the same frequency bands to television service on an international basis, and also in adopting international standards for both program broad „ 7