Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1958)

its political influence, so subservient to the network lobby, that that's why pay TV failed to get an immediate go-ahead for tests. He seems to believe station managements, let alone members of Congress, have no minds of their own — and that the networks have manipulated Congress and the public better than he has with his own well-heeled publicity machine and very substantial representation in Washington. McDonald's tirades are frequently ignored by his opponents, who hesitate to get into a hissing contest. But Salant, doubtless with the approval of Paley and Stanton, couldn't let this one pass — and he takes on the old master with a letter addressed to McDonald that's simple, straightforward, documented. Knowing the McDonald tactics of old, it's plain to us that he's again trying to play newspapers against TV, just as he tried to play the movies against TV. Mainspring of all his publicity campaigns is the indefatigable Ted Leitzell. Zenith public relations director, an old newsman, backed as usual with a fat purse. Aware that we too seem to be playing into McDonald's hands by giving so much space to his dark mutterings — that we may be abetting the old dodge of I-don'tcare-what-you-say-about-me-as-long-as-you-spell-my-name-right — we're printing the unabridged letters so that you can judge the case for yourself. >1^ * * Note ; Since we're taking a rare editorial stand, you may ask just what we, from our informational vantage point, think about pay TV. We make no bones about it — and it can't be said that we're prejudiced simply because McDonald has been so harsh a critic of TV and so seldom a user of the TV (or radio) advertising medium: Except for closed-circuit potentials, now being tested by commercial and educational interests, we think pay TV promises little more than pie-in-the-sky. We don't share the broadcasters' apprehension that tests might hurt free TV. Quite the contrary, if they're properly supervised, kept free from stock-j obbing and free from publicity maundering, they might be worthwhile. But not on Zenith's terms. Neither Zenith nor anyone else has so far offered any definitive programming plans. They've signed up nothing even conditionally by way of programs not available to free TV (except maybe new Los Angeles Dodgers & San Francisco Giants) ; have no real commitments for promised first-run movies, stage plays, operas, symphonies, educational courses — and would seem to have little prospects of getting them. We're convinced any fair test of pay TV would fail so ignominiously that the chimera of toll TV would finally dissipate. THREAT OF GOVT. CATV REGULATION RECEDES: ^ real victory for community antenna system operators emerged from FCC this week — almost obliterating the spectre of govt, regulation. Decision came in 2-year-old case involving "complaint" filed by group of small-town TV & radio stations (for list, see p. 14) which feared CATV systems would stymie local stations. They asked the FCC to declare systems "common carriers" and to proceed to control their rates and services (Vol. 12:14). Commission turned stations down flatly, and here's nub of its reasoning, as given in Public Notice 58-311, full text of which will be available in 1-2 weeks from Govt. Printing Office: "Fundamental to the concept of a communications common carrier is that such a carrier holds itself out or makes a public offering to provide facilities by wire or radio whereby all members of the public who choose to employ such facilities and to compensate the carrier therefor may communicate or transmit intelligence of their own design and choosing. .. The choice of the specific intelligence to be treinsmitted is, therefore, the sole responsibility or prerogative of the subscriber and not the carrier." CATV operator makes choice of what he gives subscriber, decision goes on to say, thus differs significantly from basic concept of common carrier. Commission also notes that even if CATV systems could be called common carriers there's serious question whether FCC could actually "restrict or control the entry or operation of