Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1953)

spect to that development and my own estimate of its future possibilities. First, it has always been and continues to be the policy of RCA not to interfere, but on the contrary, to encourage all new developments. Certainly the record of my attitude is amply known in this industry not to require any amplification of that thought. I sincerely believe that “pay-as-you-see” television on a national basis, or anything comparable to free television as we know it today, will prove to be a snare and a delusion. I have no faith personally in the practicability of the establishment of that kind of a service on a national basis. From a technical standpoint, however, I do not question the practicability of scrambling waves at the transmitter and unscrambling them at the receiver. There are different gadgets and different methods for making television programs unintelligible, until the masking of the wave is removed by some device. That is no great trick. It has been known in the art for many years. In fact, telephone voice communication by radio has been scrambled and unscrambled for many years in the services across the oceans. Moreover, I think there will be a number of ways to achieve that result technically. In our laboratories, wre have been experimenting for some years with the different methods that may be technically feasible for achieving this scrambling and unscrambling of television programs. Already we have developed a number of such systems without having made up our minds as to which is the best technically. But that technical effort is merely a research and development project to learn the best method for doing this job. My doubts about “pay-as-you-see” television are not based on any lack of confidence in the ability of the technicians to solve the technical problems. They are based on other aspects — social, political, economic and artistic. It is conceivable that in certain local communities there may be some “pay-as-you-see” programs here and there, but I am referring to a national service. And I have lived through a similar experience in the early days of radio broadcasting. How ‘Wired Wireless’ Flopped * [I remember well the period when there was a little lull in the radio broadcasting business. That was about 1924 and 1925 — before a national radio network had been established. Many people thought then that radio was doomed and that it could not be economically supported. As some of you older men in the industry will recall, there developed a great promotion for what was called “wired wireless.” That service was to be given to the public over electric power lines on the basis of a monthly fee. Well, the great, great-grandson of that pioneering effort is now called “Muzak” and I don’t suppose it is a threat or a competitor of the national system of radio broadcasting today. To some such degree, perhaps “pay-as-you-see” television in local communities may find a place, but in a national sense I do not see it. First of all, it would be negation of the philosophy upon which American radio broadcasting has been established — freedom to listen, and in television, freedom to look. It has become a part of the American heritage, and I do not think is likely to be disturbed. Furthermore, I have been unable to conceive how, in a national service of “pay-asyou-see” television, the competitive element so important in private enterprise can be preserved and at the same time avoid government regulation of rates and government control of operations. Certainly, there will be some who will advocate that because “pay-as-you-see” television, would go into the home as a public utility like gas, water or electricity, it should be regulated as to rates and services. If there is to be a national service of “pay-as-you-see” television, rather than the present competitive free system of broadcasting, then regulation of rates and other aspects of that service would seem to be a real possibility. And that would change the entire system of American radio and television. Therefore, as I see it, “pay-as-you-see” television has three aspects. . . . The technical one, which I think could be solved. Freedom to look and freedom to listen, which I think would be destroyed. And the preservation of the present competitive system of broadcasting which, I believe, would be jeopardized. No ‘Angel’ Yet in Sight * [Now, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I have not made this analysis and exposition of my own views in criticism of those who believe otherwise, and, of course, it is possible that I may be mistaken. In fact, I applaud the efforts of any organization that is willing to back its faith with its money to develop and produce a new system. In this connection, perhaps I should mention the most important element: If “pay-as-you-see” television could be established on a practical basis, there will have to be an angel who will be willing to back his faith with his money. So far I have not seen that angel.] Programs the Ultimate Test of Any Medium The ultimate test of movies, radio and television, is the value of their programs and the public interest they command. The program content of radio and television broadcasting is far more varied than in any other medium. It has to be, because its vast audience has an endless diversity of taste and interest. Broadcasting embraces all the varying forms of entertainment that have delighted mortal man through the ages. But it goes beyond entertainment to satisfy a whole spectrum of human cravings for information, education and spiritual consolation. As we listen to radio and watch television, we hear and see fine programs in every category. We also find some that are mediocre, or worse. Artistic perfection is not easily achieved, but it must be the constant goal. Critics — and their strictures are sometimes justified — do not always recognize that broadcasters must meet varying tastes and interests. Neither conventional entertainment nor the press, for instance, is called upon to change its content every 15 or 30 minutes for about 20 hours a day 365 days a year. A single movie or play may fill a theatre on Broadway for weeks, or months, or years. But the appetite of broadcasting for ever new, ever fresh fare is insatiable. No other medium is expected to cater both to the masses and the classes over the same facilities. I make these remarks not as alibis but in a bid for understanding. The primary responsibility, of course, rests with the broadcasting industry. The thousands of programs of infinite variety presented each month are the products of hundreds of performers, writers, directors and producers with abilities and talents of every degree. To demand absolute perfection is to demand a miracle. Yet we must ever set our sights high. Our effort must aim to avoid the easy road that leads to programming by formula — the road to sterility. In the last analysis, the audience is the judge and it will not remain supine under a barrage of programs that grow stale. The need for originality is particularly important in a new and voracious medium such as television. This calls for new ideas and techniques, that will ultimately lead to the development of its own art forms suitable for the intimacy of its appeal and within reasonable costs. Common Sense Standards of Taste A related objective is the maintenance of high standards of taste in pi-ograms brought into the family circle with the compelling impact of radio and television. Again, this involves human judgments which vary from individual to individual. I know of no one who has a divine right to a final verdict on what is good for the public. The people’s franchise in choosing what it will appreciate and enjoy cannot be cancelled out by self-appointed monitors. And * Bracketed paragraphs that follow are extemporaneous Interpolations. 4