Phonevision

By DEREK PARKER

AFTER some years of pressure countered by prevarication, the American Feder- al Communications Commission recently decided to allow 'Pay-As-You-View' tele- vision a try-out on a fairly large scale, for a limited period of three years, in a chosen American city.

The only company which has worked out in detail a technical plan for a PAYV system which could go into operation almost immediately is the Zenith Radio Corpora- tion of Chicago, a company specialising normally in research and the development of electronic equipment, and not concerned actively with programme production. And last month, Zenith's President, Mr. Joseph S. Wright, gave details of his company's plans.

Zenith first applied for permission to try out PAYV over ten years ago, but pressure from network and theatre interests, and from politicians, persuaded the FCC to withhold federal authorisation until this year: 'there probably never was a new business', Mr. Wright said, 'which faced so many roadblocks'. But politicians, critics, the general public, and finally the Com- mission itself have changed their minds— largely because of the rapid and almost complete deterioration of the standard of programmes at present available on American television screens.

John Crosby, television critic of the New York Herald Tribune, was probably the first major critic to make a definite stand for PAYV, in an article published in February. 'Had it not been for the availability of the huge Hollywood film library,' Mr. Crosby asserted, 'composed of features that broad- casting never in the world could have financed and produced, the medium would not have reached anything like its present status. Within a short time the pre-1948 films available to broadcasting will have run themselves out, and there simply aren't enough good post-1948 feature films on which broadcasting can live indefinitely. Which is another way of saying that some form of pay television is the next logical and inevitable step in the distribution of fine box-office programmes, which you can now see only by going to a theatre, the stadium or the concert hall.'

PAYV means—Zenith believes—a higher standard of programmes: first-class enter- tainment must be presented if PAYV is to thrive. 'Subscription TV would be the world's most miserable flop,' Mr. Wright admits, 'if it attempted to charge people for the kind of thing which now fills up the screen'. At the moment, his company is testing its latest equipment for a system which it is believed could be produced to bring PAYV television to a subscriber for a few pence a day, including the cost of servicing the equipment—an 'over-air' system, because this is the only one that could hope to succeed, in this country as in America. Last year, in the US, various organisations requested authorisation from the FCC and from various city authorities to conduct subscription television opera- tions through a wired network connecting all subscribers with central studios. The applications were unsuccessful because the would-be operators could not establish the technical or financial feasibility of wired systems of PAYV (one wired system was indeed tried for a while, in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. It closed down after only a few months, and.its failure is attributed solely to ill-chosen methods of operation). A British organisation made tentative inquiries some time ago into the economics of a wired PAYV service: the GPO assured the com- pany concerned that under present con- ditions it would be impossible to make lines available. Thus, automatically, such systems as that sketched in March of this year, in Practical Wireless, by Mr. H. J. Barton Chapple (in which telephone circuits were suggested as a means of operation) are ruled out.

Zenith's over-air scheme—named, per- haps unfortunately, Phonevision—is rela- tively simple. A 'decoder,' which can be installed on any type of television receiver, will be leased 'at a nominal monthly rate' to the subscriber. He will also receive, through the post, a monthly printed pro- gramme of entertainments to be trans- mitted. Against each entertainment will be listed the price that he will have to pay if he wishes to view it. These prices will vary according to the type of entertainment, and presumably in proportion to costs of pro- duction. .

If he decides to view, the subscriber places the necessary sum in a slot on his 'decoder', and sets the dials on the 'decoder' according to information given on his printed programme. Automatically, the picture and sound on his set are then 'de- scrambled', and will remain normal until the end of the programme for which he has paid. If he prefers, the subscriber may have an account rendered at the end of each month, the 'decoder' having registered the number and price of the programmes he has viewed.

Would the scheme be financially possible in this country? There seems on the face of it no reason why it should not be. If only half a million people viewed a programme, a charge of one shilling and threepence would bring in well over £30,000—and for that sum it should be within the wit of programme planners to set up a programme which half a million people would want to see. For their entertainment, viewers would still have paid far less than they would have spent on a visit to the cinema or the theatre, even if they went alone.

Zenith sets its sights high: Mr. Wright foresees that PAYV will present previews

of new Broadway shows (he asks one to imagine being allowed to view the first night of My Fair Lady for two shillings!), and of new films; presentations of sporting events that normal channels cannot afford; and specially arranged variety programmes, as well as presentations of ballet, opera and orchestral concerts not often seen on other channels.

The whole scheme stands and falls, of course, on the standard of the programmes presented, and the willingness of people to pay to view, instead of viewing 'free' on other channels. Only one set of 'viewing figures' for PAYV are available, and these relate to an experiment made in 1951, in Chicago, when a test group of families were provided with devices enabling them to receive, each evening, a feature film not available on other channels. They could see these films—all of which had been shown recently at nearby cinemas—for the relatively high price of S I.

The families were offered ninety films during the ninety days of the test, and the results were startling: each family spent an average of S 1.75 a week—and this at a time when the prestige of the 'normal' TV channels was still high. The same families were interviewed in 1956, and 99 per cent. of them said they were eager to have PAYV again, 'because it saved them money.' An average evening at the cinema or theatre would cost each family about S 4.

In parenthesis, to say that television can never replace the cinema or the live theatre is to beg the question: patently, in many families, it has done so already. The minority to whom the poorest live enter- tainment is better than the best television show is still dwindling.

The present position in this country is rather different from that in America. Despite the critics, and despite, even, what might seem to be general 'enlightened opinion', the majority of viewers are 'more or less satisfied' with the programmes they can see on the two available channels. Individuals may express preferences for more of a particular type of entertainment, but for every single person who wants 'more opera' or 'more ballet', three or four other people want 'more Westerns' or 'more quiz shows'. Anyone who cares to stand on a street corner and ask questions will confirm this.

There is, too, the question of initial expense. Unless any third-channel PAYV system has the use of ready-built and equipped studios, and the established transmitters, the initial cost will make a trial impossible over a large area.

It has been suggested that the third channel, when it comes, should be offered to a combination body of BBC and ITV forces, to present a 'Third TV Programme' of prestige entertainment. This would be hard to work: a system, however, by which BBC and ITV producers, working perhaps alternately, presented prestige programmes —programmes the nature of which should be strictly governed—on a PAYV network (and thus able to plough back all, or nearly all, the money received) might well result in an enviable service.