NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1944)

Mrs. George W. Freidrich, League of Women Voters, was elected President. In Duluth, Margaret Caulkin Banning, author, took an active part in the Duluth project, working with Mrs. W. L. Askill, who is the new President of the Duluth Radio Council. Both stations WDAL and WEBC are actively participating. PAUL CLARK TO WHAS Paul Clark, for the last eight years sports announcer, assistant program director and traffic manager of radio stations WGBF, WEOA and FM station WMLL, Evans¬ ville, Indiana, has joined the announcers staff of WHAS in Louisville, Kentucky. Clark comes to WHAS directly from station KARK, Little Rock, Arkansas, where he had served as program director since April first. RESTRICTIONS ON WHOLESALE RADIO DISTRIBUTORS EASED Lifting of important restrictions governing wholesale radio distributors was announced today by Ray C. Ellis, director of the Radio and Radar Division of the War Pro¬ duction Board. As a result of a revision of the radio and radar section of Priorities Regulation 13, WPB said, wholesale radio dis¬ tributors will be in a position to offer substantial aid to the war effort. The relaxed order establishes a rating floor of AA-5 or better for all wholesale distributors, who may now obtain stocks to meet the emergency requirements of prime con¬ tractors from idle and excess component stocks that are on hand in other contractor plants. Prior to the revision of PR-13, wholesale radio distribu¬ tors were not permitted to purchase electronic parts of equipment without special sales authorization from WPB. WPB officials explained that the revision is not intended to permit stockpiling by wholesale distributors, but is pri¬ marily intended to implement the movement of idle and excess stocks, and also to allow wholesale radio jobbers to fill rated orders for electronic parts. WPB officials believe that this forward movement in establishing an AA-5 rating floor will result in stimulating and expediting fulfilment of prime contractor short range requirements with hitherto unprecedented speed and pre¬ cision. The freeing of certified rejected components with¬ out priorities, from idle and excess stocks, minimizes paper work and also makes material that has no military sig¬ nificance immediately available for other uses, it was ex¬ plained. Another important revision in the order includes the free sale of rejected components to wholesale radio distributors without priorities. Under the order, distributors may pur¬ chase rejected components direct from the prime contrac¬ tor’s idle and excess stocks without coming to headquarters for approval. The order reads as follows: “Rejected components are not restricted except new and used test equipment. The term ‘rejected,’ applies to com¬ ponents that have no military value and must be so certi¬ fied as such, in writing, by Army or Navy inspectors, and records maintained in accordance with paragraph (G) of this Order.” RTPB FM JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE Committee 1 of Panel 1, RTPB has prepared a report recommending a reduction in the channel width of FM broadcast stations. This proposal is set forth on page 261 of NAB Reports for August 4, 1944. Mr. C. M. Jansky, Jr., chairman of RTPB Panel 5 on FM broadcasting, has challenged the authority of Panel 1 to prepare recommendations concerning FM broadcasting. Mr. Jansky has written to Dr. W. R. G. Baker, chairman of RTPB, as follows: “Dear Mr. Baker: “There has recently been transmitted to you and to the membership of RTPB, the first report of Panel 5 on FM Broadcasting, of which I am Chairman. This report deals specifically with those standards having a bearing upon the allocation of spectrum facilities for FM broadcasting. “The agenda which Panel 5 has adopted and which has guided its deliberations is clean-cut and is in strict com¬ pliance with the directive which the panel received from RTPB. In the conduct of its business the panel has con¬ fined itself strictly to the subjects outlined in its agenda. In no instance has Panel 5 attempted to formulate recom¬ mendations or standards for any service except the one with which it is directly concerned. “My obligations in connection with my firm’s war-time contract and my duties with respect to other national de¬ fense projects have limited the amount of attention which I have been able to give to the voluminous material on RTPB matters which has reached my desk. Such time as I have had available has been devoted almost exclusively to my duties with Panel 5. “It is with considerable surprise that I find upon some study of the activities of Panel 1 that much attention in this panel is being devoted to an issue which is one clearly and strictly within the jurisdiction of Panel 5. I refer spe¬ cifically to Panel 5’s agenda item No. 3 dealing with the width of channel to be used in FM broadcasting. This issue has been disposed of by Panel 5 in its report to RTPB and its decision with respect to it has been referred to Panel 1 for its guidance, in partial response to a series of questions Panel 1 submitted to Panel 5. “It is not my function as chairman of Panel 5 to com¬ ment on the merit of the panal’s decision with respect to this issue. However, in view of the extensive discussions apparently going on in Panel 1 on this subject, the follow¬ ing comments are in order. “The width of channel required for a satisfactory FM broadcasting system was given consideration at the first panel meeting and at that time it was decided to adopt a 200 kilocycle standard. However, subsequent to this, I, as chairman, received numerous letters and memoranda upon this subject. Some of these advocated a different standard, others endorsed the existing one. Therefore, in preparing the agenda for the second meeting of Panel 5, I placed this subject upon it and provided for consideration of a motion to reopen discussion and consideration of it. Be¬ fore submitting this question all of the material bearing on this issue which had been received was presented to the panel in detail. A motion was then made to reopen discus¬ sions but was defeated by a vote of 18 to 6. “Under the circumstances, I can only assume that the great majority of the members of Panel 5 felt that it has already received sufficient enlightenment from the record and from other sources and that in so far as this majority was concerned, it was prepared to let the previous decision stand. The record of this proceeding is available in full and complete form in the report before you which, in addi¬ tion, contains copies of all of the documents received on this subject prior to the date of the meeting at which the panel’s decision was made. “Under a directive from the Chairman of RTPB made in accordance with the policies the Board had established there have been admitted to membership on Panel 5 all of those who expressed a desire to join in its deliberations. Therefore, we must assume that this panel contains in its membership those best fitted to determine the standards for FM broadcasting as well as all of those who are most concerned with its future. “Such studies as I have had time to make of the minutes of Panel 1 on Spectrum Utilization and its committees show that the width of channel issue is not only under¬ going extensive discussion but the panel contemplates arriving at its own decision on the matter. Whether or not this decision is in accordance with that reached by Panel 5 is immaterial. The basic question which I am raising is one of jurisdiction with respect to the right to formulate a decision to be reported to RTPB. “If my interpretation of the organization of RTPB is correct, Panels 5 and 1 exist on the same level. Neither August 25, 1944-293