THE RADIO SERVICE.

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 37, 28 March 1929, Page 6

THE RADIO SERVICE.

JN another column we quote in condensed form extracts from an article published in the Christchurch "Star" from the pen of Mr. E. J. Howard, M.P. We also append to that condensation the reply made by the Radio Broadcasting Co. While Mr. Howard's atticle is scarcely worthy of notice because of its discursive and rambling nature, we are taking notice of the incident in order to emphasise a material point made by the Radio Broadcasting Co, in the course of its reply to the insinuations fathered by Mr. Howard. Without making any direct statement Mr. Howard managed to corvey the impression in his article that radio listeners were being unfairly treated in being asked to pay a fee of 30s. per annum for the radio service rendered to them. His article, therefore, was against the interest of radio rather than an effort to develop or improve the radio service. Mr. Howard, it is true, made the half-hearted confession that the Radio Broadcasting Co. "has to a large extent kept faith with their agreement to the Government." For Mr. Howard's benefit it may be well to particularise some points. Under its contract with the Government the Radio Broadcasting Co. is required to operate the four stations with a minimum service of 12 hours per week in return for the original fee of 30s. per annum (of which, of course, the Government retains 5s.). JNSTEAD of the-minimum of 12 hours’ service the company is now voluntarily giving an average service exceeding 30 hours per week from each of the four stations, without any increase of the proportion of moneys received from the funds of listeners, and without waiting for that proportionate increase in the total number of listeners which should be expected to warrant the increased service being given. This expanded service should show Mr. Howard and listeners in general that the company has honoured its agreement with the Government to the full (and more!) and is deserving of more than the grudging comment of Mr. Howard that it has "to a large extent" kept faith. It has, in fact, far exceeded its technical obligations, and is only too willing, as official statements have made clear from time to time, to expand the service to the fullest degree in line with expanding revenue. Under the broadcasting regulations it is defined ‘exactly how the revenue is to be expended, and limit is placed upon any dividend which may be payable by the company-such a dividend (if and when it becomes possible to pay one) must not exceed 74 per cent. interest on the capital subscribed by the company. Mr. Howard

should be aware of this fact, and doubtless is, and any suggestion that the company is exploiting the radio service is unworthy. We do not propose to treat Mr. Howard’s article seriously to any further extent than to emphasise the points we have made. On, Mr. Howard’s own confession as to his motives in writing the article it would be more seemly, we think, for us to congratulate him upon his original method of earning the money to pay his license fee!