Radio Broadcast (Nov 1926-Apr 1927)

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.

464 RADIO BROADCAST MARCH, 1927 mittee, lacking the support of broadcast listeners, has done the best possible job it could under the circumstances. To save the industry from a crisis, it undertook to support any legislation which had a chance of being passed, whether it was the best possible law or not. It played the political game astutely and the unfortunate and unavoidable result is that the political game is made a permanent pastime for the radio industry. The members of the Committee could not well afford to antagonize the politicians before whom they must later appear for their private interests. The Conference Committee's temporizing attitude is well shown by an excerpt from their report to the Congressional Conference Committee: This Committee is aware of the many interpretations of the effect of the two forms of radio control provided in the Senate and House Bills. It is also aware of the wide difference in the terms of these two forms and the consequent differences of opinion on this subject. From the point of view of legislative expediencies, the Committee would prefer not to pass upon this subject, or make a statement in favor of one of them, but feels obliged in this important matter to express an opinion solely on its idea of the good of the industry and the radio listener. The Committee urges that, in the discussion of this matter and in the final decision, whether it is a compromise or not, the imperative need of immediate legislation compels the acceptance of some principle of control, if failure to agree will prolong and increase the difficulty of legislation. It is true that any form of control might be made effective, at least until AN ENGLISH RADIO ENTHUSIAST William Calvert Bramwel.l of Dingley Dell, Teddington, England, who is said to be one of the oldest radio listeners in England. He is 82. During the 1926 international radio broadcast tests, Mr. Bramwell slept all afternoon in order that he might listen for American stations from one to six a. m. English time corrective measures can be taken, if experience proves the necessity for a change. Included among the Committee's nine members are representatives of two wavelength jumpers, an interest which considers radio broadcasting as a potential rival to its business, and a spokesman for the amateurs. Yet the Committee did a most unselfish and constructive job, supporting as it did, priority as the determining factor in assignment of wavelengths, [See "March of Radio," September and November, 1926,] five-year station licenses instead of two-year licenses and urging that distinction be made between the broadcaster's rights with respect to the government and with respect to each other. This latter proposal was stressed by the Air Laws Committee of the American Bar Association in its comprehensive report to the Conference Committee, which came out strongly and fearlessly against an executive commission to handle the issuance of station licenses. Had the radio industry's Coordinating Committee been solidly backed by twenty million broadcast listeners, it could have dictated the terms of the bill with only radio's best interests in mind. It could have insisted forcefully on maximum power to the Department of Commerce with only advisory and limited appellative powers to the Commission. It could have forced the adoption of definite limitations to the number of licenses issued and to the basis upon which they are to be granted. In absence of widespread listener support, its attitude was wisely one of compromise. The radio industry owes a lasting debt of gratitude to its hard working representatives in Washington. The industry has no one but itself to blame that they could not do more than thev did. ivr WHERE THE RADIO LISTENERS ARE The dots represent localities from which one or more letters have been received by one of several broadcasting stations on the east or west coast. No inland stations were considered in this particular survey Danger of Monopoly in Broadcasting ONOPOLY of broadcasting, which is such delightful music for the politician's song, is most effectively fostered by the fact that there is no incentive to the establishment of rival broadcasting chains. With an excessive number of broadcasters, the listening audience is so divided that the value of individual stations outside of the National Broadcasting chain is too problematical to be saleable on a large scale at the 'high rates necessary to maintain a truly rival chain. With political management for radio wavelength assignment, the chances of having the number of stations reduced by consolidation or elimination to the small number of 200 or 225 necessary to clear and unimpaired reception are made rather remote. Had the legislators concerned themselves with what is good for broadcasting, they would have set up a definite formula as to the number of stations which the present broadcasting band can accommodate. In the September