Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1930)

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.

"I have personally made trips about the country to deter¬ mine the service being rendered by WB3M and other stations” , Mr. Atlass continued. "Field measurements were not made but ordinary receivers in daily use in ordinary homes were used to determine just how the various stations were being received. It was my purpose to find out the public satisfaction or dissatisfaction with station service not to determine engineering data. In Lafayette, Ind. , for example, I was able to receive good service, both night a/nd day from WE NR, WLS, WGN, WMAQ, WBBM and KYW, in Chicago; WLN, in Cincinnati; WHAS, at Louisville; WO WO at Fort Wayne; WTAM, Cleve¬ land, and others. This test was made in July and with weather that could be considered unfavorable. "In Muscatine, Iowa, approximately 185 miles ar/ay all of the above Chicago stations mentioned were readily heard with the exception of KYW, which was interfered with on the receiver I was using by WOC, just 20 kilocycles away. In addition to those sta¬ tions mentioned, KI/I0X was among others giving a good signal day and night. This was in April, generally considered an unfavorable month for reception." Mr. Atlass said that not 50 per cent of the service area of Station WBBM lies within the State of Illinois, and that of the audience served, not 50 per cent are residents of that State. He declared that Illinois is being charged with an over equality of reception which it is not receiving. Thomas P. Littlepage and John Littlepage, counsel for WBBM moved the Radio Commission to revoke General Order No. 92 on the ground that the same is an arbitrary basis for allocating radio stations, power, kilocycles and time and is invalid in that in such allocations made b}/ General Order No. 92, it does not carry out the purpose or intent of Section 5 of the Act of Congress approved March 28, 1928, and that in charging the various States, and in this particular case the State of Illinois, and failing to charge other and adjacent States on the basis of radio service they are receiv¬ ing, that it does not make correct interpretation of Section 5 of the Act above referred to, in which the Commission is required to make and maintain equal allocation of broadcasting licenses, based both on transmission and reception. Pickard Pleads For Full Time For WBBM Mr. Pickard told Ellis A. Yost, examiner, that Station WBBM originates an average of 25 programs a week for the Columbia Broadcasting System, and that Chicago is second only to New York in importance to network broadcasters. • "Permission of the Federal Radio Commission for Station WBBM to operate full time and with 50 kilowatts power is desired and urgently needed", Mr. Pickard went on. "Not only would full time and higher power give continuous high-power service to a poten¬ tial audience estimated at more than 12 million persons, but full time for WBBM is of even greater and more fundamental importance to the progress of the entire Columbia system.