Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

7 Anii-Pay TV Gall to Arms: A general declaration of war on pay TV to block any approach it might take to capture viewing public — through the atmosphere by broadcasts, by wire overhead, by cable underground — was proposed this week by Chairman Harris (D-Ark.) of House Commerce Committee. As part of the strategy, very limited broadcast tests would be permitted. If such tests failed, the pay TV issue would become academic. He introduced a sweeping joint Congressional resolution (H. J. Res. 130) prohibiting operation of any home TV subscription system “until new legislation has been enacted specifically setting forth the terms under which pay TV may be broadcast or transmitted.” Significantly, however, Harris resolution does authorize FCC to conduct limited “technical test operations” for systems. Heretofore, Harris has opposed opening up pay TV even to that limited extent. He said he now is agreeable to commercial tests on home sets “to see if such an operation could be successful.” Results, he said, would help guide Congress in writing ultimate pay-TV regulations.” Declaration of war is aimed not only at broadcast pay TV, which was target of delaying actions last year by House & Senate Commerce Committees (Vol. 14:6, 8). It covers any & all interstate & intrastate home systems — including such systems as Bartlesville, Okla. closed-circuit operation which collapsed in 1958 (Vol. 14:21), wired payTV franchise setup which petered out on west coast (Vol. 14:9), never-realized pay-as-you-see baseball in San Francisco & Los Angeles (Vol. 14:37). Harris said he wanted to prevent “imposition of great financial burdens on the American people” by pay-TV operators. He pointed with scorn to “certain promoters” who sought to undertake unregulated non-broadcast wire operations “in an apparent effort to escape Federal regulations.” * * * ♦ But even Harris apparently saw no urgency in payTV threats. He plans no Commerce Committee hearings on his resolution — or on bills banning pay TV outright, which are beginning to pile up in House (see p. 6) — before 60-90 days. Nor is there assurance that resolution — as written — will win Committee approval. There is even less assurance that it would get through Senate Commerce Committee, whose Chairman Magnuson IDWash.) doesn’t go along with all-out opponents of pay TV. And in any event, there’s no immediate outlook for any action by FCC even permitting tests of pay-TV systems. Under agreement with Senate & House Committees, Commission is delaying any tests until end of opening session of 86th Congress, which probably won’t come before Aug. Only applicant so far for broadcast pay-TV authorization is uhf grantee WSES, Philadelphia (Ch. 29) — and its application isn’t sufficiently detailed to meet FCC requirements. If main promoters of pay TV — Skiatron, Zenith & Telemeter — are ready to move soon, they aren’t talking about their plans. Harris resolution nevertheless is explicit: “(1) The Federal Communications Commission may not authorize any person to broadcast, or to render any communication service by radio or wire, which would aid in the broadcasting or transmission of, any pay television program. “(2) It shall be unlawful for any television licensee, or any common carrier engaged in radio or wire communication, to engage in any State (whether in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce) in broadcasting, or in rendering any communication seiwice by radio or wire which would aid in the broadcasting or transmission of, any pay television program.” Resolution does, however, concede that FCC has some authority in area — question which Harris raised repeatedly in his pay-TV hearings last year. It permits FCC — for unspecified “limited periods only” — to run pay-TV tests which Commission “deems necessary in the public interest.” « :ic % In conducting tests, FCC would apply “restrictions which will insure (1) that such technical test operations with respect to any particular system of pay TV will not be carried on by more than one person or in more than one area of the country, and (2) that no one person will carry on such technical test operations with respect to more than one system of pay TV.” The resolution authorizes FCC to go to court in civil injunction actions to halt any pay-TV operations — actual or threatened — ^which defy prohibitions. We asked Skiatron TV’s Matthew (Matty) Fox what he thought of the Harris resolution. “I never heard of such a thing,” he said. “It’s unconstitutional. It’s the first time we ever heard of the public being denied the opportunity to make a choice. It’s like having a law in behalf of the railroads which bars buses because they carry passengers.” Zenith’s usually voluble Ted Leitzell told us: “We have nothing to say about it at all.” Telemeter’s Louis A. Novins withheld any comment until he sees text of resolution. Meanwhile movie operators, whose opposition to pay TV in past has been directed largely at over-the-air variety as an added drain on box office receipts, were lining up for concerted support of Harris resolution. Strategy for coalition of Joint Committee on Toll TV, Theatre Owners of America and new American Congress of Exhibitors is being directed by Washington communications lawyer Marcus Cohn, attorney for TOA’s pay-TV committee. Torre’s Coming-Out Present: TV-radio columnist Marie Torre of N. Y. Herald Tribune finished her 10-day jail sentence for contempt of court (Vol. 15 :2) this week — and got a coming-out present from singer Judy Garland. Overhanging Miss Torre as she emerged from Jersey City’s Hudson County jail was threat of another trip to prison if she persisted in defying Federal Court orders to divulge CBS source of column item about Miss Garland. But singer’s lawyer Lionel S. Popkin called a press conference to announce that Miss Garland would not pursue her demand for disclosure in pre-trial of her $1,393,333 libel-breach-of-contract suit against network. “Miss Garland does not intend to punish Miss Torre again in pre-trial proceedings,” said Popkin. He added, however, that question of who gave Miss Torre her column item could be raised once more when case comes to trial — in about a year. Columnist might be called as witness for either side at trial. “It will then be a matter between her and the court” if she refuses to talk, Popkin said.