Re: my Colonial post

[Donna Halper <dlh@donnahalper.com>]

>Bob P. wrote--
>
>I would opt to defer to her info and to take The Times' info as reporting
>what they understood to be the case. Just want to avoid a possible
>misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding at all.  Keep in mind that back then, contracts were 
signed, announcements were made to the Trades, and then, either some piece 
of equipment didn't arrive or something didn't work or whatever.  The 
article I had was about the contract being signed in early August 1936, but 
that doesn't mean the network was officially on the air till September. No 
doubt they ran some tests in August, and then started the network 
officially.  In fact, some sources DO say early September 1936 was the 
official on air date, so we could both be right.

WBZ announced to the newspapers on a number of occasions in late 1947/early 
1948 that WBZ-TV was almost ready to go on the air... I recall at least 4 
such announcements.  Then, there was a snowstorm, a part didn't show up for 
the tower, then it was the wrong part, the new building wasn't ready yet, 
etc etc.  That's why I don't usually rely on only one newspaper 
article.  It may have been correct at the time, but things didn't always go 
the way people hoped when the press release was written!