Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1956)

REMBIJSCH, STARR SLAM INTO LEE TOLL TV PLEA . . . Exhibition opponents claim FCC member disqualifies self with recitation of contention of toll TV proponents In one of the most scathing and sharply worded statements yet issued in the subscription television controversy Trueman Rembusch and Alfred Starr, co-chairmen of the Committee Against Pay-to-See TV, Monday charged that Commissioner Robert E. Lee, of the l-'ederal Communications Commission, is highly unqualified to sit in judgment of toll TV. Commissioner Lee, said the proposed medium’s two most articulate opponents, has publicly tried the issue without conducting a hearing or without intelligently considering the ramifications of toll television. ^^Unethical Stand” The Rembusch-Starr blast was in answer to Commissioner Lee’s article on toll TV in the March 20 issue of Look Magazine out this week. The co-chairmen of the voluntary industry group asked the FCC official to “disqualify himself for he, a public official, has taken a highly unethical stand on an issue which a whole group is to pass upon, by writing an exclusive article for his own personal gain, and for using his office to influence others in the pay-to-see TV controversy.” Abe Stark, president of the New York City Council, this week wrote all United States Senators and Representatives asking for an immediate Congressional investigation into the activities of Commissioner Lee. Calling Mr. Lee’s article in Look a “flagrant abuse” of the 1934 Communications Act, Mr. Stark asked for an “admission or denial” of reports that Mr. Lee had received “substantial payments” for the article. The City Council recently passed a resolution opposing any form of toll TV. Commissioner Lee, who “is an appointee of Senator Joseph McCarthy, now plays Charlie McCarthy to vested interests like a chip off the old wood block,” Mr. Starr and Mr. Rembusch said. They continued, saying that Mr. Lee, by mouthing the “sales ' pitch” of the firms seeking monopolies on the pay-to-see systems, has committed himself, prior to proper hearings, and without consideration for the office which he holds and his fellow commissioners. By so doing. Commissioner Lee has prematurely ruled on an issue which possibly could cost as much as $1,150 annually to Lee of FCC Asks Immediate Public Trial Of Toll Television in Magazine Article Commissioner Robert E. Lee of the Federal Communications Commission this week added new fuel to the fire around the toll television controversy. In an article in Look Magazine, issue of March 20, Commissioner Lee called for a halt to the “endless legal procedures, hearings and studies” on subscription TV and proposed a four-point program that would “get the paid TV show on the road.” Due to the fact that the issue currently is under the consideration of the FCC, Mr. Lee’s views were considered “highly unusual,” in the words of his publisher. The commissioner, in an article entitled “Let’s Give the Public a Chance at Paid TV,” asked that the proposed system be put into effect on an experimental basis because “hearings will never settle the question.” The Federal Communications Commission official called for the Commission to initiate the following program : “Approve subscription television on a broad basis, leaving to the entrepreneur the choice of the system he wishes to use; apply some temporary restrictions until we know where we are going. For example, we might consider limiting it, in the initial stages, to the UHF portion of the band, with perhaps some further restrictions on the amount of time which could be charged for, in order to protect free broadcasting; permit this test of paid TV to continue long enough to truly test public reactions, give stations and programing facilities time to work out the necessary changes in their operations and test public reaction to a variety of paid programs ; permit stations to drop paid TV if they find to their satisfaction that it does not fill a market need in their own area.” Cites Six Points Commissioner Lee also indicated that he “personally believed” that Congressional approval for paid TV was not necessary. He based his justification for a trial of the proposed system on the following sij» points : “There is a public interest in fostering the utmost possible competition in TV to make sure that all viewpoints have an outlet.” The television audience, rather than Government experts, ought to have the opportunity to vote for or against paid TV. Paid TV could greatly alleviate the economic woes of the high channel or UHF stations, which now “for the most part are in dire straits. . . . Subscription TV would be a boon to the independent station.” “The cost argument against paid TV is irrelevant. Under a free system, people should be free to pay for goods they want — including television entertainment.” “The public may be glad to pay for the pleasure of seeing programs they do not now receive — current Broadway plays, major sporting events, superior film productions and the like.” Paid TV could broaden the country’s culture, education and knowledge through programing such as opera, correspondence courses and medical demonstrations. These could be beamed at small select audiences paying a moderate price for the privilege. Coincide Closely Industry observers this week were quick to point out that Mr. Lee’s six points coincide closely with the arguments put forth separately by the three major proponents of toll TV : Zenith Radio Corporation, Skiatron Electrons and the the International Telemeter Corporation. Skiatron has in particular espoused the cause of toll TV as a means of saving UHF broadcasters from economic disaster. At the same time. Commander Eugene McDonald of Zenith has been chiefly concerned with subscription television as a public right and champion of the idea that toll TV would bring the public various types of TV programing now denied it. the American family, $75 to $100 of which figure would be for each one of the three home toll TV devices alone, said the cochairmen. Mr. Starr and Mr. Rembusch, in attacking Commissioner Lee’s four-point program calling for “approval of subscription television on a broad basis,” declared that the FCC official contradicts himself by asking for “some temporary restrictions . . . until we we know where we are going.” He also asks that in the initial stages, UHF stations might receive limited pay-TV rights in order to protect free broadcasting, but “why should the public be taxed specifically to defray the cost of unsuccessful private enterprises such as some UHF operations,” the committee co-chairmen asked. MOTION PICTURE HERALD, MARCH 10, 1956 15