NAEB Newsletter (July 1948)

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.

- 8 - VIDEO—NOW YOU SEE IT—NOW YOU JDON 1 T Beginning with the FCC*s statements about additional spectrum space required for special cogmunioations and safety services, end following the elimination oF Channel ^1 from the TV band for special communication, and winding up with re¬ marks by John Y/illougby, acting chief engineer for the Commission to South Caro¬ lina broadcasters, television entrepreneurs spent the month of July examining their pale reflections in any mirror which happened to be handy* Reports from the PCC hearing in late June re assignment of television channels pointed up the following factorss 1* Reallocations are definitely in the picture—when and where remains a question . Some are viewing the 450 to 600 mo, band as TV 1 s future resting spot. 2, There are more TV applications thpn frequencies in many areas, and the situa ¬ tion is likely to get worse rather ihan better. " 3, Ast onishingly few educators appear to be interested in television operation, considering the fact that once the TV channels are filled there is likely to be no second ohanoe. Significant factor here is cost of installation and operation which is prohibitive for most, but may show short-sighted view of future. 4, Many observers believe, despite reallocation threats, which could render whole TV future uncertain/ that present investments both by station operators and equipment manufacturers will make any shift a gradual, rather than a drastic one . 5 • The TV reallocation and assignment hearing scheduled in September may be prolonged, but will do much to clarify the present situation. N-A-E-B REPRESENTED BY CARL MEFzER AT TV HEARINGS Carl Menzer, director of N-A-E-B stations WSUI & KSUI (University of Iowa) attended the FCC television hearings as an engineering observer for his own stations and for the National Association of Educational Broadoasters. The National University Extension Association was also represented by means of a resolution sent to the FCC by Bittner of Indiana University asking that a por¬ tion of the TV spectrum be reserved for educational usage as one result of any reallocation procedures. MAJOR ARMSTRONG SUES RCA & NBC ON PATENT RIGHTS Major Edwin H. Armstrong, inventor of the FM principle of radio transmission, filed suit in Federal oourt in late July against the Radio Corporation of America and the National Broadoasting Company, charging infringement and misrepresentation of his patent rights. He sought permanent end preliminary injunctions against what were called all further infringements in addition to an unspecified amount of damages. Armstrong charged RCA and NBC with intent "to maintain RCA's monopoly of the busi ¬ ness of granting licenses under radio patents in the U.S. and to maintain NBC's dominant position in the business of broadcasting in the U.sT 1 * Armstrong contended that RCA falsely represented to the radio industry that it had an FM which did not infringe upon his patents and induced members of the radie industry to believe it was safe to infringe on his patents without securing lioenses .