Gisborne's Plight

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 46, 31 May 1929, Page 32

Gisborne's Plight

(To the Hditor.) ANY thanks for your publication of my letter re Gisborne and the position of licensees owning short-range reeeivers. You attach an editorial footnote that calls for further comment, on account of the logic you advance. Certainly no one is "compelled" to purchase a short-range receiver, but the fact remains that should a person of limited means (for any reason whatever) purchase such apparatus, that person "is compelled" by law to take out a license, and 25s. is collected on behalf of the.R.B.C., the other 5s. being retained by the Government to pay expenses of administrating the law, etc. The R.B.C. are not a licensing authority, and therefore the 25s. they receive cannot be claimed under that head. Upon-this argument it becomes apparent that the 5s. retained by the Government covers "the priviledge" of a licensee owning radio receiving apparatus of any status. This fact is borne out by the number of ultra-short-wave receivers, ete, that cannot receive R.B.C. transmissions, but still have to be licensed. Included in this category I place all crystal receivers outside the radius of, say, 40 miles from a R.B.C. station, and in Gisborne I must include many short-range valve receivers, owing to distance. It does not seem good business ethics to suggest that these poor outranged receiver owners should be "compelled" to keep on paying out 25s.:per annum to the coffers of the R.B.C. until that body collects enough to instal some supply to fill the void. It may be for years or it may be for ever. Allow me to show by close analogy how the present system would apply in other forms of business. Let us, for illustration, take a suppositious case, in the motor and petrol business. The "Carpetro Company" vision a unified supply of petrol to ficensed motor-vehicle owners, and to that end offer the Government a contract to supply petrol to such licensees, providing the Government add £25 per annum to the annual license fee. Presuming the Government were idiotic enough to accept such conditions, your argument would favour only supply to Rolls Royce’s, etc., while Ford owners would only be allowed to receive a

a to et charitable "present" of petrol now and again, from some garage proprietor, or benevolent citizen. The analogy ma not be exact, but the-principle in buginess ethics is the same. The theory of a firm building extensions from profits may be correct, but those profits should be made upon goods delivered for cash received. When one considers the relationship between company, shareholders, and customers added to capital expenditure and profit expenditure to increase business, the glaring injustice of the present system of licensing becomes apparent. Speaking for Gisborne, I may state we are willing to pay full fees if immediate steps are taken to give a supply by the R.B.C.--Sam J. Pearson, 14 Parau Street, Gisborne. [We will have to agree to. differ with our correspondent on the of what is and what is not logic. We retain our view that it is both illogical and impracticable to expect any broadcasting authority (Government or company) under present conditions to guarantee reception to crystal or shortrange users in any part of New Zealand that they establish themselves. Naturally the governing authority will provide service to meet demand, but there is an obvilous limit to the rate at which it will pay to invest capital and expand service. Such investment must have relation to the prospective return.: — Fj ]