Talk:DuMont Television Network/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about DuMont Television Network. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a personal observation, whoever re-wrote most of this from my DuMont web site did a truly lovely job, with no objections from me whatsoever. I have tweaked a few lines. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) was formerly the Blue Network of the National Broadcasting Company. Ed Noble, the inventor of Lifesavers's candy, bought the radio network from NBC in the 1940's. DuMont was already airing television shows when ABC radio began producing television shows. ABC was forced to use DuMont's studios in New York City. Thus, DuMont was television network #3, ABC was #4.

True enough, but DuMont is generally called the "fourth network" because ABC passed it in the mid-1950s, and also because DuMont did not survive, while the "Big Three" did. Similarly, Fox is often referred to as the "fourth TV network," even though they have now been on the air for twenty years, and are rarely fourth in the ratings. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And, technically, DuMont was broadcasting network programs before CBS, so chronologically it would be #2. Naturally, though, it only makes sense to call it the "fourth network" as Clarke points out. --Firsfron Apr 24 2006

A note of sorts: For various reasons, both Fox and UPN could be considered "revivials" of DuMont. Fox because of WNYW and WTTG, UPN because like DuMont, it has a significant connection to Paramount Pictures. CoolKatt number 99999 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding on: As you saw, CBS would merge with Westinghouse in 1995 and gain ownership of KDKA-TV, the former WDTV. In 1999, Viacom merged with CBS. See the irony? Viacom had bought Paramount in 1994, and Paramount's refusal to help DuMont would help lead to DuMont's downfall. For WBBM-TV, the former WBKB-TV, it was also a reunion of sorts with Paramount, the original owners of the station. CoolKatt number 99999 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

the Paramount Pictures movie studio, which had previously had its fingers in the young CBS

Er, isn't there a better way to phrase this, like "Paramount Pictures, which once had a financial interest in CBS..."? The old phrasing makes CBS sound like a terrified young girl on her wedding night... -- RMc

A bit of irony can be seen in that statement, since Viacom would buy both in the 1990s. CoolKatt number 99999 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Some have suggested that Fox is a revival of DuMont." Who has suggested that, and what exactly is the basis for that suggestion? It needs to be spelled out more clearly, or else this fuzzy comment should be removed from the article. —Mark Mathu Jan. 1, 2006

I presume its claimed becase six MetroMedia stations were the founding six Fox stations, and that MetroMedia took over a number of DuMont's. Its a messy analogy, though. --Kiand 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

DuMont's stations, and the remains of the network, were purchased by John Kluge and became the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation, later changing its name to Metromedia, the company which Rupert Murdoch bought to start the Fox network. Channel 5 in New York and Washington were key owned and operated stations for both DuMont and Fox. Fox is a direct lineal descendant of DuMont, and I have amended the line to state this. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dumont.jpg has an image tag that says it is still a copyrighted logo. If the network no longer exists, wouldn't it be pd? Mattderojas 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily... AnonMoos 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The DuMont logo shown was used on television sets, not specifically for the television network. I did not upload or tag this image, but I believe it is still under copyright. Because DuMont was sold off in pieces (the stations/network to John Kluge, the laboratories to Fairchild, and the radio/television manufacturing operations to Emerson, and all this over a period of years), the copyright issues are complex, although some of the trademarks and service marks reside with the Fox network. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the connection between the bombing of Nagasaki and the DuMont network? This should be spelled out more clearly in the article.

I've begun a table of DuMont affiliates. The list is still a bit VHF-heavy, but I haven't yet found references to more UHF stations. I'm still looking! This will be a good start, though.--Firsfron 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And as you can see (compare the version at the time), he's come a long way in the 13 days since then! In fact, this list is starting to approach fancruft status, and probably should be split into a separate article. Morgan Wick 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't split the page off earlier because of fears of "'cruft" deletion, and am reluctant to move it because of that fear. I don't think the list comes anywhere near 'cruftiness, because the data is historically relevant and there are certainly precedents for other (current) networks to have affiliate lists, but I do worry that some Wikipedia editor will come along and delete the page, citing a "Non-notable network I've never heard of" (or something similar). From my experience, list pages are more vulnerable to this sort of deletion.--Firsfron 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of affiliates is helpful. It's better than the list on my own DuMont Web site. Splitting it off would probably make it less relevant and more likely to be deleted. Doesn't bother me here. Clarke 152.163.100.138 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Clarke. To tell the truth, even my best efforts have only produced an incomplete list. For the life of me, I still can find no reference to stations in Arkansas, Hawai'i, Montana, or North Dakota. If DuMont's claims that they were viewable in (roughly) 99% of the country were accurate, then there must be stations in those states that I'm not finding.--Firsfron 11:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that with respect to DuMont "affiliates," we are talking about only a handful of stations (no more than 10 or 15 at the peak of the network, according to some sources) that carried the DuMont program lineup full-time. DuMont claimed hundreds of affiliates for their NFL football games, but these were really the affiliates of other networks clearing time (in this case, weekend non-prime time) for a DuMont show. With "Life is Worth Living," many stations that aired the show ran it out of timeslot, using kinescopes. Also, there were short-lived UHF stations that carried DuMont and quickly went dark because virtually no one was watching. (DuMont's own UHF station, KCTY in Kansas City, suffered this fate after only a few months.) Trying to follow this trail fifty years later is frustrating, to say the least, and the "affiliate" situation back then was much different than it is now. I'm sure some of the stations on your list only ran one or two DuMont shows per week, and those probably out of sequence. Clarke 64.12.117.6 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Clarke. I have found many claims that DuMont had only 10-15 primary affils, but several of the TV guide listings from that era list independent stations as "DuMont". I wish I could find more TV guide listings for all the markets! I'm aware that stations at that time could "cherry pick" the most popular programs, and I did try to emphasise this in the list. The list really only has 27 primary DuMont stations in the entire network's history, with over half of them (14) UHF stations, in line with the common estimate that DuMont had no more than 10-15 primary affiliates.

Further commentary would be welcome.--Firsfron 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes just now, and I think it is time to split the list into a new aritcle. CoolKatt number 99999 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The DuMont logo looks an awful lot like the Du Pont logo. Is there any connection? KriZe 02:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a connection. --ukexpat 15:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 9 That should be good enough for a draft of a seperate aritcle about the DuMont affiliates, don't you think so? CoolKatt number 99999 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for a separate article? And, if so, why in this order?--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a need, because it is getting overly long in the main DuMont article. Also, sorting by where it is now, then frequency, then state makes it easier to read IMO. CoolKatt number 99999 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorting by City/State is easier than a confusing sort by "where is now", then "frequency", then "state", then "city". None of the other articles is sorted that way, and people looking for information aren't going to be looking for it by frequency. And lists such as this, without an accompanying article, are more apt for deletion and tags of insufficient context.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the adjustments in the table. It does look better.--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the similarites between UPN and DuMont:

• Paramount Pictures owned a stake in both networks -- in fact, UPN once stood for United Paramount Network
• Both networks struggled in the ratings
• Both networks closed down after around a decade -- with UPN's closure coming 50 years after DuMont's
• Both networks had faced challenges from media consolidation (DuMont faced Paramount's anti-trust fears, UPN control gradually shifted to CBS after its merger with Viacom)
• Both networks aired shows that also aired on CBS (DuMont had The Honeymooners, UPN had Wolf Lake and Veronica Mars)

Therefore, UPN could also be considered a revival of DuMont

Can anyone think of any more? CoolKatt number 99999 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you "Wolf Lake," but "Veronica Mars" was aired on UPN, and only a couple of episodes were aired on CBS last summer in order to help boost viewership; that hardly counts. --Mhking 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I think Veronica Mars will feel right at home on the CW, especially since its production company (Warner Bros.) owns half the network. CoolKatt number 99999 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

One important difference between the two was that Paramount didn't support DuMont: they didn't carry DuMont programming on their stations after 1948, and actually competed with DuMont in the two markets they owned stations: Chicago and Los Angeles. This helped lead to DuMont's downfall. The DuMont Memorial site has a quote from Dr. DuMont saying something about Paramount wanting television to fail. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, but the ironic thing is that because of this possibly, Paramount had a downfall, and was then sold to Gulf+Western, who also bought neigboring Desilu Productions and made it Paramount Television. Universal Studios and Orion Pictures entered television production in similar ways:

• In 1963, the Music Corporation of America purchased Universal, and merged its TV production company, Revue Studios with it, changing its name to Universal Television (ironically, Paramount and Universal currently co-own United International Pictures)
  • In addition, Universal inherited the pre-1950 Paramount theatrical sound feature library which had been sold to MCA in 1957
• Orion Pictures was originally owned by Warner Bros. and 3 former United Artists execs. After becoming independent in 1982, it merged with famed TV production company Filmways, which then became Orion Television. Orion then went into bankruptcy, and sold Orion Television to ABC, which renamed the company ABC Productions, now it is part of Touchstone Television after the Disney merger. CoolKatt number 99999 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm just crazy but DuMont and DuPont are clearly similar words and the logos are nearly identical aside from the "Television" subtitle. Freak coincidence?

It is a strange coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

can any one tell me more about dumont... i would like to know if he is a relative my last name is dumont but i dont know anything past my great grandfather who past away in maine. the rest of my family history is vauge thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.61.64 (talk • contribs)

I'd presume that as the names DuMont and DuPont are merely "of the mountain" and "of the bridge", there would be no reason for there to be a connection of the two. The "de", "du", "O'", "van" and other similar prefixes in other languages just mean "of". --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be spelt Du Mont, according to this website [1].Yet-another-user 05:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "preferred usage was Du Mont", but you can even see from the logo the space between Du and Mont was very, very small. Since "few people include the space, and others write the name as Dumont", I'm not sure a move is needed. Somewhere there is a guideline that states the article should be at the most common spelling or phrasing. In fact, the owner of the web-site you link to spells it DuMont throughout his site, and has visited our article here without that particular complaint. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read this article at random and found it well-written and extremely informative, with lots of citations. Though I think it might need another picture (perhaps of one of the network's programs or stars, or even an archival photo of a station's building), I believe this could (and should) be a good article. Does anyone else agree (or disagree)? -- Kicking222 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As the guy who added all the citations, I certainly agree. I did not write most of the text, but I think this article is certainly Good Article-worthy. Your ideas for including another photo make sense. I will try to hunt down another picture. I am hoping to get this article up to Featured Article status before the end of the year. Any other suggestions? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this photo of the Du Mont logo: http://members.aol.com/cingram/television/dumont3.jpg . I hope it's better than the current one. I know it's not what you have been looking for, but I hope it helps.DesignForDreamingFan 07:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't just steal a logo from another web site. I have a suspicion our current logo also comes from that site, but the owner has apparently given his approval. We can't just take things wholesale from another site. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it public domain now?69.136.128.185 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Although DuMont hasn't been in business for 50 years, according to Mr. Ingram, the company's trademarks and logos are held by successor companies. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a trademark has a fifteen-year expiry if left unrenewed; a search on uspto.gov should report whether the name is still registered. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it be noted that several DuMont shows ("The Morey Amsterdam Show", "Rocky King Detective", "Cavalcade of Stars" and "Captain Video and His Video Rangers") are on or coming to DVD? DesignForDreamingFan 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. If you don't add it, I will. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Heres my references: [2], [3],[4], [5].DesignForDreamingFan 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. I moved the paragraph a bit down further, but it looks good. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see (besides the references being on the talk page rather than in the article) is that as written it makes assumptions about when the article will be read ("now on DVD") and it would be good to rewrite to avoid those assumptions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to reword. I didn't add those references to the article itself because they are explicit commercial links. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to be "DesignforDreamingFan", But I forgot my password. Anyway, I found this reference for Captain video (TV series): [6]. Matthew1990 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the links you provide again are explicit commercial links. I'm loath to put anything as a source which includes "shopping cart" in the URL. I actually don't believe there's a huge need to provide references for this section, as the material isn't particularly controversial. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've passed this article, as I think it meets the criteria of a good article. There are still some minor issues regarding phrasing (did it really "close its doors"?) but the article is well-written and an interesting read about a subject about which few reference works exist. (I acknowledge that the article owes much to an external site about the network, although this is evidently with the consent of the owner of that site.)  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the "closed its doors" phrase, as I think "ceased broadcasting" is just as effective, and perhaps more accurate. Thanks for the suggestion. I believe originally this article was loosely adapted from Clarke Ingram's DuMont site, but Mr. Ingram has approved, and even added to this article, and anyway, many changes have been made since then. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First, this is a great article.

However, the first sentence refers to DuMont as an "officially licensed" television network. I hope someone can provide some reference to, or clarification of, this term.

The peer reviewof this article includes the following question:

Question: "received a network license" what is a network license, and who gives them out? experimental stations dont need a license? Answer: The FCC awards licences, but only awarded three for DuMont, five for each of the other networks. Part of this article tries to explain why this helped lead to the company's downfall, so it's really, really important.

The reviewer's question asks for clarification of the network license. As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as a "television network license" in the United States. When the FCC wants to regulate a network, it usually regulates that network's O&O's which is de facto regulation of a network. But, the network itself has no licensure status apart from its ownership of its O&O's. The response to the question in the peer review doesn't answer the question; it refers to station licenses.

As one example, Canadian broadcasting as regulated by the CRTC has specific requirements for licensure and regulation of networks and their content. Global Television Network of Canada long asserted that it was a "system" and not a "network" to avoid regulation as a network. I suspect that if there were any U.S. requirement for a "network" license with any accompanying regulation, we would see broadcast groups aggressively avoiding, or at least skirting, the "network" label.

If anyone can verify this concept of licensure I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, the "officially licensed" status should be deleted.Meersman 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the words "officially licensed" before "television network." If anyone can provide any evidence of "television network licensure," they're welcome to revert.Meersman 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While I think the distinction is splitting hairs (because a network doesn't exist without its O&Os, thus without commercial licences for the O&Os, there is no network), but I do not object to the current rewording. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Note 32: Ransom, Mike (1998). Tulsa TV History Thesis - KCEB.

This is incorrect. The actual author of this 1967 masters thesis is Corarito, Gregory, as can be seen on the title page: http://tulsatvmemories.com/tvthesis.html TulsaTV 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. I apologise for the error, but did not see the reference to Gregory Corarito. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this block of text from the article:

Although NBC was known to have had a station-to-station link as early as 1943, DuMont received its station licences before CBS and NBC even resumed their experimental broadcasts.^[1] ABC had just come into existence as a radio network in 1943 and at the time had no plans for television.

It doesn't make sense. The NBC and CBS television stations in New York City ceased to be "experimental" in July 1941, when they became commercially licensed. How and when did CBS and NBC "resume their experimental broadcasts"? — Walloon 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NBC and CBS basically shut down during World War II. According to Bergmann (2002), "CBS and NBC planned to shut down their television activities, but when DuMont announced that it would stay on the air during the war, the other networks followed suit. However, there were very few broadcasts -- mainly test patterns, films concerned with the war effort, air raid warden information and other emergency training programs that served a public purpose and kept the station licences in place and active." In contrast, DuMont received its commercial licence for WABD during the war: May 2, 1944.[7]

Please return this sourced material back to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know about NYC television broadcasting during World War II. But the block of text is still in error. NBC resumed "experimental" broadcasts on an irregular basis starting in November 1936. Yes, their television broadcasts were irregularly scheduled from November 1936 to April 1939. Nevertheless, the NBC station in NYC was experimentally licensed and on the air — irregularly — two years before DuMont's experimentally licensed station NYC station was. The block of text is badly written, and needs to be revised to clarify when "experimental broadcasts" resumed on NBC and CBS. If circa 1944-1945 is meant, that was the resumption of commercial broadcasts by NBC and CBS, not "experimental."

Some kind of precedence claim is being attempted her, but it's badly worded, "DuMont received its station licenses" when? "Before CBS and NBC even resumed their experimental broadcasts" when? — Walloon 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If circa 1944-1945 is meant, that was the resumption of commercial broadcasts by NBC and CBS, not "experimental." No. DuMont's second station, WTTG, received its commercial licence on November 29, 1946 (Weinstein, 2004, page 17). Newsweek recognized DuMont as "the country's first permanent commercial television network" on April 15, 1946 (Weinstein, pg 16). The NBC network certainly wasn't commerically broadcasting "circa 1944-1945" as you state, as it had just the one station until its affiliation agreement to share programming with WPTZ in October of 1946 (Weinstein, page 17). CBS held off network operations until 1948 because they wanted their color system adopted. Please provide a source which claims NBC or CBS was commerically broadcasting on their network circa 1944-1945. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in my previous post to I use the word "network." I specifically used the word "station", several times. The fact that we seem to be talking about two different things shows how badly written the removed text was. The text needs to be clarified: is it talking about individual stations or networks, what years are being claimed for each entity, and what is meant by "experimental broadcasts". — Walloon 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we seem to be talking about two different things shows how badly written the removed text was. No, it shows you were confused. Which is unfortunate, and can be fixed, but certainly did not require the removal of a sourced sentence. I believe, however, that things can be clarified a bit by adding the single word "network", adjusting the text to:

Although NBC was known to have had a station-to-station link as early as 1943, DuMont received its station licences before CBS and NBC even resumed their experimental network broadcasts.^[1] ABC had just come into existence as a radio network in 1943 and at the time had no plans for television.

The clarification, however, isn't truly necessary as the article is, after all, DuMont Television Network, not WABD or WTTG, and NBC and CBS are networks, not local stations. It is implied that when the article discusses NBC or CBS operations ("Although NBC was known to have had a station-to-station link as early as 1943, DuMont received its station licences before CBS and NBC even resumed their experimental broadcasts."), the article is discussing these networks, not individual stations. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "experimental" should also be removed or changed. It confuses the issue with the difference between the FCC's experimental licenses and commercial licenses for broadcast stations. Better expressions might we "earlier network broadcasts" or "previous, sporadic network broadcasts". NBC's NYC station began transmitting some programs on an irregular basis to Philadelphia and Schenectady in 1941. All three stations were commercially licensed. — Walloon 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much like your proposal of "previous, sporadic network broadcasts". If you have further suggestions or comments on how this article can be improved, please feel free to comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! But I did remove the mention of CBS — unlike NBC, it had no prewar network television broadcasts, so could not "resume" those. — Walloon 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! Thank you, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The artcle says "founded in 1932 by Dr. Allen B. DuMont." The DuMont Laboratories page says 1931. Which is it? Trekphiler 13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My sources are vague, but indicate it was 1931. Weinstein (2004) says DuMont began the company at age 30. Subtracting his birthdate gives the year as 1931. Bergmann (2002) also only implies the date was 1931. I'm switching out the number. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Passaic: Birthplace of Television and the DuMont Story purports to commemorate the 20^th anniversary of DuMont and was broadcast in 1951, so a 1931 start date for the company is plausible. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of this network, but Death makes a reference to it while he is recovering at the Simpson's home. I figured that I would learn more here. I was not disappointed. Talk about an obscure reference! Avid reader 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so obscure if one considers that many of the key DuMont owned-and-operated stations are now Fox O&O's. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WDTV's sign-on made it possible for stations in the Midwest to receive live network programming from stations on the East Coast, and vice versa. Comments?--Filll 14:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading, Filll, and the comment. WDTV's sign on made it possible to connect the Midwest's coaxial cable network to the East Coast's coaxial network, like a link in a chain. Without a station signing on between the two seperate lines, the coaxial networks would have been seperate. This was long before televised satellite signals; the only way to send live network programs to multiple TV stations was through coaxial cable. Do you think this should be clarified somehow in the article? Firsfron of Ronchester 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As a casual reader, I was confused. I would suggest something like:When WDTV began regular broadcasts, its programs were transmitted to midwestern stations by a coaxial cable link for live broadcast in the midwest as well. This says the same sort of thing in different words, which might help. Of course, I do not suggest my proposed wording is perfect, but just something off the top of my head.--Filll 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the suggestion, Filll. Wording suggestions really help me because if I know the material fairly well, I won't even recognize what isn't obvious to the first-time reader of the article.

The sentence needs to convey the idea that stations like WGN in Chicago and WABD in New York were finally able to share programs though a live coaxial cable feed when WDTV in Pittsburgh signed on, because the station completed the East Coast-to-Midwest chain, allowing stations in both regions to air the same program at the same time, which is still the standard for U.S. television ("8 eastern, 9 Central", etc). I wish there was a less dorky way of phrasing that. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean "9 Eastern, 8 Central". 216.179.123.147 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I guess I do not understand. Why did it depend on a station in Pittsburgh broadcasting? Surely a coaxial cable from New York to Chicago could enable "live" broadcasting of the same program in New York and Chicago simultaneously?--Filll 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they were still building the coaxial cable network (and would continue for years). There wasn't a complete chain between New York and Chicago. When WDTV signed on in '49, the coax from the east was stretched west to connect the station, and the coax from the west was stretched to connect the station. The station itself didn't have to actually broadcast anything (though of course it did; several programs originated in Pittsburgh), but a "dark" (silent) station wouldn't have been connected to either regional network (because it costs a lot of money to connect stations, and no one is going to spend so much money on connecting a dark station), and the Midwest and East Coast networks would have remained seperate, at least for a few more years. I'm sorry for my poor explanations, Filll. Thanks for your suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I understand. Perhaps the text needs a bit more explanation then to make it clearer.--Filll 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it does need some fixing. Thanks for bouncing some ideas around, Filll. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently discovered that an episode of the DuMont Network series "Kids and Company" will appear on a DVD by Shout! Factory. Is this worth noting? DuMont Network programming is very rare, so it's unusual for anything they made to appear on DVD. BTW this is a great article, Very helpful. Retro Agnostic (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{tone}} earlier. In doing so, I was referring specifically to the somewhat informal tone used in certain sections of this article. Below, I'll provide some examples:

• In the Programming section, there is the phrase "DuMont was an innovative and creative network". I feel this breaks the formality tenet of WP:TONE, or perhaps more specifically peacock terms. It might be better written as, "DuMont has been called an innovative and creative network", followed by a more direct explanation of why it might be considered so, or in what ways it is considered "innovative" and "creative". The subsequent paragraphs
• The later sentence, "DuMont also holds another important place in American television history". I'd say this is surely peacock terms. It's explained in the following sentences, but a basic explanation of this significance should be mentioned in the sentence. Perhaps... "DuMont also became the first network to be able to show live programming simultaneously on the East and West coasts".
• The phrase in parenthesis, "Gleason left for CBS in 1952 just as his star began to rise". Again, this breaks the formality tenet of WP:TONE.
• In the section The end, the sentence, "However, DuMont had by this time turned its biggest liability—its lack of live clearances—into an asset". Again, I feel this is informal. It could be better written as "By this time, DuMont had begun to differentiate itself from larger networks; because advertisers could pick and choose the locations where their advertising ran, they stood to save a great deal of money".

There are some of the main concerns I found in the article as-written. There are more minor problems that I would suggest correcting here and there. I hope this helps, sorry if I'm stepping on anybody's toes here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All of your suggestions can certainly be worked into the text. If certain portions of this article are too informal, that can certainly be addressed. In fact, I have recently requested a copyeditor go over this article, and these are the sorts of suggestions that are most helpful. "Stood to save a great deal of money" seems less formal than what is there now, but the other suggestions seem good to me. You certainly aren't stepping on anyone's toes by suggesting new wording, but flyby tagging without explanation won't improve the article. I'm glad you've explained your view. Thanks. (If the changes haven't been implimented by tomorrow, I'll work them in myself). Firsfron of Ronchester 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

HM... I was just about to implement your suggestion about "DuMont also became the first network to be able to show live programming simultaneously on the East and West coasts," but I realized it's not correct: DuMont's link to WDTV didn't mean that it was the first network to be able to show live programming simultaneously in the East and Midwest; it meant that all four major networks could show live programming in the East and Midwest (and DuMont wasn't the first, since all four broadcast the opening ceremony). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Precisely why I didn't try to revise the article myself... I figured I might introduce errors. Boy... who knew that watching The Honeymooners last night would turn into this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's so cool that somebody decided my YouTube video was worthy of being part of external links, AND added some links to the Videos I uploaded to the Internet Archive! Hey, I've uploaded an episode of "Cavalcade of Stars" to the Internet Archive, anybody wanna add a link? Retro Agnostic (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been writing articles on DuMont Network programs, such as The Johns Hopkins Science Review and Rhythm Rodeo. If anyone wants to help me de-orphan them, please do. Retro Agnostic (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Retro,

I did notice your nice work on these articles. I'm a little busy this week, but I'd be glad to help, as I created a few stubs myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do more research. I've been trying to find out more about how many DuMont kinescopes survive. The person who wrote the book "The Forgotten Network" claims that around 400 kinescopes exist, my research indicates that upto 600 may exist. It also appears DuMont's final broadcast may exist at the UCLA. I'll also try to add to the article something I discovered a few days ago; "Captain Video and His Video Rangers" will see a commercial DVD release sold at major shops across America in late November! (Damn, I forgot to add my username!) Retro Agnostic (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The August 6, 1956 episode of Boxing from St. Nicholas Arena does indeed exist at UCLA. Here's the complete list from UCLA, and the MBC also has 8. Since you are interested in writing articles on the TV shows themselves, I can definitely recommend the following books:

• McNeil, Alex. Total Television. ISBN 0-14-024916-8.
• Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows ISBN 0-345-31864-1.

These both have nearly every DuMont show, along with detailed info and airdates. They tend to be more accurate than IMDB, and are pretty comprehensive.

Weinstein's book is good; two more great ones are Bergmann's and Heldenfel's. Bergmann worked at DuMont and was privy to what happened... it's a must-read. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check out those books. I decided to start writing these articles after watching a few surviving DuMont kinescopes. One problem I have with the "400 surviving kinescopes" number is that this doesn't include the 100+ surviving episodes of Life is Worth Living which are sometimes aired on EWTV, along with the DuMont kinescopes held by private film archivists like Ira Gallen. According to the Hopkins university itself, they have [8], dozens of episodes of educational TV programs from the 50's, manu of which may be DuMont programs. That is still a fraction of DuMont's output though. To be honest I think the exact number of surviving DuMont kinescopes won't be known until somebody asks every film archive in the United States to check their collections, along with asking every affilate of DuMont whether they have any films/tapes of DuMont programs, as well as asking everybody who hosted a show on the network whether they have any prints. While the number of surviving DuMont programs will always be small, there may still be a few kinescopes to be found yet. Retro Agnostic (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lampman. Suggestions and further comments are also appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to do the research or write an article, but DuMont developed a remarkable color TV studio system that in a sense "worked backwards". In place of cameras, it had projection flying-spot scanners, and the reflected light was captured as video by arrays of large-area photomultiplier tubes with color filters. These tube assemblies were manipulated as if they were studio lights.

Of course, a flying-spot scanner would provide far too little working illumination, so the studio had lights that pulsed on only during the vertical blanking interval; in practice, they apparently provided satisfactory (or better) working light.

One unique liability of this scheme was that the studio had to be completely light-tight; any stray light would reach the pickup arrays. (Of course, sound studios have to isolate external sounds, as a parallel.)

I really don't know whether the studio ever created any programming, but I'm fairly sure it was operational. Nikevich (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nik,

The flying-spot scanner system is covered at Vitascan and is linked in this article; apparently only two TV stations, both in the Midwest, used the Vitascan color system. However, the use of the system sort of post-dates the network. I hadn't added anything about Vitascan to this article because by the time Vitascan was in use, the network was dead. I could write something, though, if you think it really should be covered more in depth in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After World War II, until Tektronix came into its own, DuMont made the best oscilloscopes in the USA; they even made some with projection CRTs, as well as cameras with continuously-moving film for the timebase. They also made some very good CRTs, for both TV oscilloscopes and TV receivers. DuMont's 'scopes had recurrent sweeps (except for one model, iirc the 256-B, which had "driven sweep"). Tektronix, however, had triggered sweep, which was far more versatile; DuMont was slow (as I recall) to sell triggered-sweep 'scopes. Nikevich (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I went through this article months ago and I did not realize it was a GA. I'm presently researching the two contracts Bert Bell signed w Dumont, one should be in 1952 and one should be in 1953. One for the regular season games and one for the post season games. I read a few of these books in here months ago but they did not actually help. I just tossed some books at the Golden Age of Television's further reading section. I think Bergmann's and Hess' book are applicable to GA of TV, correct me if my memory is bad and add to the further reading list please, if yout think another book could be applicable. Particularly, what was not helpful in the Dumont books for Bell was the Dumont books basically just said they kind of scheduled the game of the week on the weekends, for the most part, maybe, and during prime-time, but not always :). So I could not tolerate that kind of equivocation.

I am interested in the contracts because he was able to introduce revenue sharing into the NFL. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To make a long story short, the money from the Dumont television contracts (this is based on several authors) came at just the right time, after the expensive AAFC-NFC war. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)