Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1958)

1§ OYot It^P World elemovi € City MOVIES-IN-THE-HOME ARE ON VERGE OF FAILING The Bartlesville dream — that movies could be merchandised over a closed circuit system that was a hybrid of community antenna operation and subscription tv — is fading. There is a strong possibility, it was learned last week, that Video Independent Theatres Inc. may suspend Telemovie operations in the Oklahoma city in the next few months. Henry Griffing, president of the southwest theatre chain, admitted that the company was seriously considering the advisability of discontinuing the operation in its present form. Losses for the past four months, it was learned, have exceeded $40,000— or $10,000 a month. Ironically, the eve of the Bartlesville experiment has come as the number of subscribers stands at its highest peak. There are almost 800 families paying a $4.95 monthly fee to view the two services now being offered — first run movies and background music and a community tv service furnishing the signals of the three Tulsa stations. Originally, when Telemovies began in September 1957, the charge was $9.50 and services were two; first run movies on one channel, and re-runs on the other. In December the Bartlesville operation faced a crisis. Subscriptions had dropped from a high of 500-odd to fewer than 300. Early in 1958, the Telemovies format was drastically revised, with the concurrent price cut. The new programming also includes a Sunday matinee of art films. Mr. Griffing makes no brief for the project's failure. "I was in error in thinking that the public would pay a blanket charge to see movies," he told Broadcasting last week. "There is no question in my mind that the viewer must have the opportunity of picking his picture and paying for it as he sees it. This means meters, but we have not been able yet to find the right device." A test of meter payments in place of a flat monthly fee has been underway in Bartlesville for the last three months, but, according to Mr. Griffing, the instruments have not been satisfactory. And, he added, there is none on the horizon that is right. The suspension, if it comes, will not be a closing, Mr. Griffing emphasized, but a chance to restart the project from scratch. One reason for closing down, the Video president stated, was to permit renegotiations with motion picture film suppliers, the telephone company (which owns the distribution system) and General Precision Labs. Inc. (which has provided the studio cameras and projectors). One major factor in the present difficulties, Mr. Griffing stated, was the competition from "free" movies on Tulsa's three tv stations. "When we started," he explained, "there were about 30 movies a month broadcast from Tulsa. This increased regularly, to 60 to 90 taken an unusual approach to the regulatory problem by defending illegal booster transmitters that feed stronger signals to isolated places in mountainous areas. The^e boosters provide service to tv-hungry constituents in their home states, though they are widely deemed to be operating in apparent violation of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules. The Commission is sensitive to this congressional heat and has managed to avoid a head-on approach to the problem. Around Capitol Hill are a number of legislators who wonder if the FCC can continue much longer its nibble-and hide policy toward the problem of tv feeder facilities — CATV, boosters and some 200 licensed translators. The number of boosters, estimated at around 1,000, is believed to have doubled in recent months. The states are doing little about CATV regulation. Attempts to enact legislation have failed. A court case in one state is centered around the possible public-utility status of CATV. The question of program property rights has haunted broadcasters, program originators and the CATV systems. No tv station has yet volunteered to be guinea pig in a test case, but many broadcasters consider a court review inevitable. The issue: Can CATV systems feed broadcast programs into homes for a fee, over the objection of stations, networks or program originators? A corollary question: Can CATV systems manipulate broadcast electrical signals in the process of providing community service? Two FCC cases strike at the heart of these problems — a protest by KLTV (TV) Tyler, Tex., against a CATV system's plan Page 34 May 12. 1958 to add four microwave relays that require FCC licenses; a petition by a group of western stations asking FCC to reconsider its disclaimer of jurisdiction over wired hookups. CATV appears to be approaching a new episode in its life. Broadcasters are wondering what the future holds for this once cute little bonus baby. Where pinch is felt Televison stations in some areas served by community antenna systems are starting to worry about their life expectancy. KGEZ-AM-TV Kalispell, Mont., went off the air in April, blaming CATV, and then ran into more trouble when its proposed sale was blocked [At Deadline, April 28]. In Tyler, Tex., KLTV (TV) is fencing Broadcasting