Radio Broadcast (May 1928-Apr 1929)

The Davis-Dill Publicity Barrage Begins OPEN season for obscure Congressmen to focus public attention upon themselves by shooting holes in the unfortunate broadcast structure is again upon us. The first to seize upon this tried method of limelight winning were the familiar figures of Senator C C. Dill and Representative E. L. Davis. The theme of their 1928 short-session song hit is that the power of broadcast stations should be limited to 10,000 watts. "These highpowered stations," says Senator Dill, "dominate the dials of most receiving sets within a radius of 150 to 200 miles of the transmitter using immense power. Since the Commission will not protect the public, Congress is the only body that can do so. The people for whom Congress passed radio legislation are entitled to conditions under which they may listen to stations other than those of immense power. In practice, it is found that these highpowered stations cannot be separated by kilocycles." Our listening post is so located that the effect of high-powered transmission may be observed under the most ideal conditions. Within twenty miles are wjz and weaf and 110 miles to the North is wgy. Utilizing a receiver costing less than $150, we heard, between sundown and 11 p.m. during the first ten days of the new allocation, while each of these "dominating" high-powered stations were broadcasting, wcau, wwva, wham, wfbr WBVA, WPG, WBT, WTAM, KYW, WHO, WBZ, KDKA, WCFL, CKCW, CFRB, WFIW, WCSH, WMAK, WIS, WENR, KWKH, CJCG, KOA, WHAS, WCCO, KTHS, WNC, WJB, WGN, WLW, WPTF, WMAW, WSM, WGBF, WTMJ, WIP, and wfi, each with intelligible loud-speaker volume. The local stations are not included in the list. Over half of these out-of-town stations were reproduced with sufficiently good quality to be comparable to locals. The entire spectrum of low and high-powered local stations is spread adequately so that none interferes with another. There is not the slightest support for the Senator's statement that stations over 25,000 watts cause any greater trouble than 500 and 1000-watt stations at equal distances. It is a well-known experience that, when power increases are first put into effect, poorly designed receivers in the immediate vicinity show up their inadequate selectivity. After a few weeks of operation, ancient receivers are replaced, excessively long antennas are reduced to more reasonable proportions and wave traps are installed at locations within four or five miles of such stations. These alterations are necessary, whether the new station is 5000 or 100,000 watts. Levelling the power to 10,000 watts does not eliminate the need for these reasonable modifications, nor does it increase by an iota the number of stations which may be loaded upon our broadcast channels without heterodyning. On the other hand, power curtailment reduces service to listeners in remote areas and increases the Circular bank of 15 water-cooled power-amplifier tubes used for transatlantic telephony. This unit has an output of 200 kw. disturbing effect of interfering atmospheric and electrical noise upon reproduced programs tuned-in by both urban and rural listeners. PUBLIC PREFERENCE The public prefers the loudest station which offers an acceptable program. The higher the signal level, the less sensitive and less expensive the receiver required to reproduce it. As the signal level is reduced, the musical quality of reception is proportionately injured regardless of amplification power. Restricting broadcasting to low power deprives the rural listener of any real broadcasting service and, even with a most expensive receiver, whatever programs he is able to tune-in from lowpowered stations are marred by excessive tube noise, static and electrical interference. It was only with the advent of high-powered broadcasting that radio was lifted from a curiosity to a musical instrument. The senator is setting out to destroy the musical value of radio for all except those within the shadow of broadcasting stations. The greatest damage which would be wrought by the adoption of his proposed measure would be the farmer and • February, 1929 . . . page 233 • the rural listener who finds radio an almost essential enhancement to his happiness. He usually is equipped with a less expensive receiver and will resent the loss of the only stations which give him a good loud-speaker signal. The Senator's effusion is inspired by the fact that it enables him to make spectacular attacks upon the great electrical interests. Defending the weak against the strong makes good newspaper copy, even though, in the case of broadcasting, its prospective effect is to weaken radio signals and curtail broadcasting service. It is inevitable that the great electrical and radio interests should be the only ones willing to build great stations because small fry can neither afford to erect such stations nor to pay the immense cost of operation and maintenance involved. Hence, discrediting high power has that delightful antimonopoly flavor which is so effective with the gallery and the press. In the last analysis, the listener is the one who would pay, were the Senator successful in forcing his proposal into law, by being compelled to buy a more expensive receiver and by the reduced quality of reception which the weakened signed would give him. Senator Dill's bill to authorize a salary of ,$10,000 a year to the chief counsel of the Federal Radio Commission is a most constructive measure and we are pleased to commend his stand in this matter. BROADCASTERS AS UTILITIES Representative Huddleston of Alabama wishes to class broadcasting stations as public utilities because they wield great public influence. The principal effect of such classification would be to take from program directors the right to select entertainment and educational features according to the desires of the listening audience. According to public utility principles, whoever has the price of broadcasting woidd be entitled to the service of the microphone. Facilities must be provided to meet whatever demands the public makes for them. Considering that there is no way of increasing the number of broadcasting stations to the thousands necessary so that all who wish could broadcast, the proposal is no more unreasonable than requiring the President of the United States to take all persons of voting age for a joy ride in his limousine on the Fourth of July. Newspapers and motion pictures also have great public interest and they might, on the same plea Mr. Huddleston makes for public utility regulation of broadcasting, be compelled by Congress to publish all news and propaganda items submitted to them and to film all politicians at whatever cost they render such service to anyone. We hope that the trade associations of the radio industry will profit from the painful lesson which they should have learned last year, when the destructive Davis Amendment was slipped over while the industry associations slept. Since the general public