Radio Broadcast (Nov 1924-Apr 1925)

Who Is to Pay for Broadcasting— and How 865 A TUBE TAX IS READILY APPLIED THE most important feature of a broadcasting levy applied to tubes and crystals is the readiness with which it can be applied. A stamp affixed to the article, or applied as a seal to the package by the manufacturer lends itself to the requirements of a strict enforcement measure. A concurrent feature is that the work of supervision and apportionment of the tax is greatly simplified. It is difficult to apply a tax to a radio set, which may consist of antenna, ground, batteries, amplifier, loud speaker, and innumerable other components or accessories. To levy a tax on all of these articles would be a clerical task of unnecessary magnitude that would make the expense of collection excessively high. Since the manufacturers of tubes is so nearly a monopoly, under the existing patents on these important products of the radio industry "bootleg" manufacturing or evasion of the tax would be difficult. Conversely, the tax on tubes would be simple and easy of application and enforcement. With crystals, however, the situation is not so simple. The production of these articles might be made into a monopoly, thus facilitating the application of the stamp tax at the point of manufacture. Or a few large wholesaling houses might be given control of the entire supply and the stamp tax applied there. It is not inconceiv= able that the requirement be laid down for the affixing of a stamp representing the tax at the time of sale to the ultimate consumer. But a tax collected from the manufacturer, pro Is This the Solution? This plan of Mr. Kellogg's, which received the prize of $500 offered by Radio Broadcast, won over some thousand others which were submitted. The judges were, Professor J. H. Morecroft, president of the Institute of Radio Engineers (1923-4); Major J. Andrew White, formerly editor of the Wireless Age and well-known descriptive broadcaster; Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times and owner of khj ; Frank Reichmann, a Chicago radio manufacturer and an oldtimer in the field; Dr. Royal S. Copeland, United States Senator from New York, representing the public point of view; A. S. Lindstrom, chairman of the Pacific Radio Trade Association; Zeh Bouck, one of the best known radio authors in America; and Charles H. Porter, Chicago, secretary of the Radio Manufacturers' Association. The officials of the American Radio Association, under whose auspices the contest was conducted, do not feel that this plan is the final word in the matter of "who is to pay?" and neither do the editors of this magazine. The broadcasting problem cannot be settled as easily as this plan proposes, although without doubt there is much to be said for Mr. Kellogg's plan. One of the chief stumbling blocks is the setting up of a federal bureau of broadcasting which seems to be contrary to the entire trend of radio development. We believe that anything which smacks of too centralized federal control or censorship would be resisted as much by the public as by all those administering radio to-day. Next month we shall print an interesting discussion on the entire subject. — The Editor. vided there are not too many manufacturers, could be more readily enforced and is therefore most desirable. The effect of a tax as outlined upon the radio industry is problematical. It would depend largely upon the additional cost of tubes and crystals to radio fans. In a later paragraph, the yearly budget needed for broadcasting purposes is briefly discussed, and the amount required from each owner of a receiving set does not seem excessive. The economic stability accorded to broadcasting by the plan outlined should soon carry the industry farther forward than ever before. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADMINISTER THE FUND T! HE most practicable administrator of the broadcasting levy outlined is obviously the Federal G overnment. It is inconceivable to require manufacturers and producers of tubes and crystals to collect a stamp tax and turn it into a pool or fund held as a monopoly for and by private interests. The problem is clearly national in scope. It is outside the control of individual states and if run by private interests would require the granting of dangerous monopolistic power. The work of administering a national broadcasting service is not particularly susceptible to political corruption. With full publicity of all accounts, mishandling of the funds in trust would certainly be difficult. And the public would be a daily judge of the quality of entertainment provided. The tremendous value to the Government of having broadcasting stations continuouslv under its control in times of