NATO v. the Monster

THE INDUSTRY

During the past two decades, television has helped reduce attendance at local movie theaters by an estimated 60%, forcing one-fourth of them out of business. Yet, for the past half-year, the cinema-house owners have acted as if their major mission in life were to rescue TV--at least in its present form --from extinction. Moviegoers find SAVE FREE TV inscribed on marquees and are asked to sign petitions to Congress on behalf of the old archenemy. Between pictures, a message flashes onscreen warning about "the monster" out to "charge you for the very TV programs you now get free."

The monster under attack is pay-TV, the proposed complement to existing TV service that has been awaiting a final go-ahead from the Federal Communications Commission in Washington since the early 1950s. Pay-television companies would provide subscribers with a special TV-set attachment that decodes scrambled signals to bring such features as Broadway shows, operas and first-run movies. The campaign to slay the monster is led by the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO to the trade) and supported by some projectionists' union locals. Legitimate theaters are not a part of the national association or its fight. Regular television stations, even though they might benefit from NATO's offensive, have also stayed out of what is becoming a scare campaign.

Slob Area. Exhorting the Illinois chapter of NATO, Campaign Co-Chairman Henry Plitt proclaimed that "the monster can destroy every movie house in the U.S. When the marquee lights go out, it doesn't take long for the small community to become a slob area, a slum." NATO also warns that pay-TV puts traditional TV in jeopardy and "discriminates drastically against the poor."

NATO's fear is understandable, but its arguments have been so extreme that Rosel Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, recently issued a fact sheet to deal with what he called "a totally unfounded and untrue campaign." Pay-TV, said the paper, "will supplement, not supplant free television." Pay-TV would be restricted to markets where at least four standard stations are already operating. Pay-TV operators would not be allowed to charge for a series like Laugh-In or Here's Lucy, or for sporting events now seen on free TV. They would deal only in programming not now available.

There are no pay-TV stations currently operating in the U.S. In fact, the only thing approaching pay television is closed-circuit presentations of heavyweight-championship boxing matches and the Indianapolis 500 auto race, both of which are shown in movie houses for $5 to $10 a seat. (Last May, one Fort Worth theater marquee inadvertently carried two contradictory promotions: SAVE FREE TV and INDY 500 RACE CLOSED CIRCUIT TV.) The NATO contention that pay-TV would rob the poor is similarly leaky. With subscription TV, a whole family could see a film for $1.50 or so, far less than the price of admissions, baby sitter and transportation to the theater.

Second Enemy. NATO claims that 9,000,000 Americans have signed its petitions, and 21 Congressmen have drafted bills to ban subscription TV. So far, the proposed legislation has not stirred much interest on Capitol Hill. NATO's other resort is a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit contesting the authority of any FCC licensing of pay-TV.

Even if pay-TV loses the battle, NATO will not have won the war. Already, many marquees have replaced the SAVE FREE TV slogan with FIGHT PAY-TV IN ANY FORM. That is an oblique attack on cable TV (CATV), a different service designed to bring extra channels and a clearer picture to isolated and poor-reception areas for a monthly fee. If CATV operators are allowed to add programs of their own, including new movies, the resulting diversity could be another serious threat to theater owners, who are already so beleaguered that they cannot afford to laugh off any competition. Says Martin Newman, a Long Island movie-chain proprietor and chairman of the NATO national campaign: "Pictures belong in the theaters. We don't even like the airlines showing films."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.