Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1960)

VOICE OF EXHIH1T1DN Exhibition #>o#i«* *###it/" #yV>#* in Industry Not only could Pay-TV wipe half our Free TV stations off the map, but because talent is limited, and will go to whomever pays the most, it would so sop up available talent that the Free TV stations would be severely if not fatally crimped for lack of programming. I would emphasize this is what could happen if Pay-TV succeeds; something I don't believe will ever happen unless by our lack of effort, we permit it to succeed by default. I was in Etobicoke in Canada just a few months ago, when the Telemeter system was first launched. I have seen for myself how it works. It is free TV without commercials, and if it would ever gain subscribers in appreciable numbers, mark my words that the commercials will come in due time. I have sensed for myself — despite the elaborate and unsubstantiated claims from Paramount — the public antipathy to Pay-TV. I came back from Canada feeling that it was only a matter of time before Etobicoke will follow Bartlesville and Palm Springs into limbo. ETOBICOKE BALLY The Pay-TV system in Canada was launched with the greatest parade of bally-hoo that country ever witnessed. It compared with the visit of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. The people who subscribed did not realize that thev were being hood-winked into paying [ for something which they have been, and are now, getting for free. Canada's situation is even more dangerous than ours. In most of Canada today there ■ are a series of Community Antenna systems which were constructed so that free TV signals could be brought to the home television sets which ordinarily would not receive them because of topographical or electronic obstructions or deficiences. As science advances and deficiencies are overcome, there would be no need for any community antenna system to bring in the signal. It was because the people in some districts of Canada have been indoctrinated to pay for a signal itself that Telemeter felt that Toronto was fertile ground to launch the slot-machine gadget. The Etobicoke experiment was to start with 14,000 subscribers; after months and months of delay it finally | got underway with — to use their own figures — a thousand. It promised first run movies; the best it has been able to do is present subsequent run pictures. It promised concerts, spectaculars, sports; it settled for out-of-town games of the Toronto hockey team brought in by ordinary telephone line. It said its programming would cost subscribers only a few coins a day; thus far programs have been SI each, and if a person wanted to see a hockey game and a movie on the same night, be pays S2 — or if he tried to switch back and forth from one to the other, he paid SI each time he switched. How long will the public stand this sort of tariff? They proved on Monday, June 21, that the Telemeter, with all of its promises could not bring the greatest out-door fight attraction to its subscribers. Why? Because the fee was too high. Pay-TV, just like Free TV, is an insatiable ogre. Insofar as the average viewing hours are concerned, whether in this country or elsewhere, we have been advised by survey and research organizations that the average home looks at TV for fire hours a day. Of course this means that some look at it more or less, but if you translate five hours a day into dollars, it means that where you have Pay-TV and want to continue your view ing habits, you will spend a minimum of S3 per day or S21 per week or SI, 092 per year for the privilege of looking at motion pictures and sporting events which, from the inception of television, have always been free, and will continue to be so when the cost factors are indelibly impressed upon those w ho will have to bear the toll. However the Etobioke experiment has provided a service for us. It has drawn and dramatized the new battle lines, just as the threat of the Pay-TV test in Hartford is doing, and from this we can expect to gain much knowledge. Etobicoke is presenting films from most of the major companies. If we ever needed proof of the extent that some branches of our Industry will go for a quick buck regardless of the consequences, we have it in Etobicoke. We know now without question that we exhibitors alone in our industry are the only ones combatting Pay-TV; that we must carry the load, just as we have for these many past years; just as you here in Maryland so eloquently demonstrated a few years ago when you deluged Washington with thousands of protests against Toll TV testing. In our Country, Pay-TV through the air was effectively delayed thanks to public hearings held by Congressman Harris. The FCC issued what is known as its Third Report, dated March 23, 1959, which sets forth the conditions under which over-the-air tests of subscription television may be made. This Third Report in effect summarizes all the elements of Rep. Harris' Bill, HJR — 130. When the Third Report was adopted, Mr. Harris appeared before the entire House of Representatives and made the following statement: "Under no circumstances, can the action of the Federal Communications Commission and the action of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce be construed to place a stamp of approval on subscription television as a permanent service. All that is authorized is a conduct of limited tests sufficient to determine the feasibilin of subscription television, but not so extensive that it would permit, without further action by Congress and the Commission, the development of a new subscription television service on a permanent basis." HARTFORD PROMISE When Zenith and RKO General first announced their plans for Hartford, they, in their first ad, stated what appears to be a violation of the terms of the Third Report. They said "The costs will be modest." They said they will charge a few dollars for installing their coin and decoding equipment, which will not be sold to the subscriber, but placed in his home on the same basis as his television. The FCC Third Report specifically says all installation costs must be borne bv the Pay-TV system, not the subscriber. The ZenithRKO ad continued: "the cost of the individual programs will vary, but will approximate that of a single admission to a first-run film. The subscriber will know in advance what each program will be and how much it will cost. Subscribers will pay only for programs viewed." End of quote. This is merely an indication of the aggressive disregard the proponents have for the official mandates of the United States. They have flouted the official report of the FCC which says ( Continued on Page 27 ) Film BULLETIN July II. 1940 Page 21