1
the two parties speaking now.
3. As regards (a) I have often wondered on what
basis the Hong Kong Government saw the "public interest'
Was it that having decided that there ought to be
competition and thus that a second service had to be
started it was essential that Government should see
that TVB was able to get off the ground. Nowhere in the papers that I have read is the Government attitude described except in pretty general terms, though there appear emotive phrases like "pirating TVB's output" and (from the FCO!) "clipping TRV's wings". What I would
like to know is whether the fact that TVB has made its
own way and is now doing very well makes no longer necessary the legislation which was undoubtedly aimed at RTV. Would in fact be possible to get the two sides together now to sort the facts out for themselves in which case the most contentious part of the legislation might be unnecessary? An important factor in this is whether Mr. Oldridge's successor may be more amenable to reason than he was. TVB is presumably still in Mr. H. W. Lee's hands.
4.
Another factor, which may be easier to assess in 1970 after TVB has had a couple of years of operation, is whether the dire predictions of 1967 of the result of R.T.V. contemporaneously relaying over wire the TVB programme are more easily assessable or likely to be borne out. Put very briefly they were:
(a) TVB could not operate commercially and the the element of competition would be destroyed if RTV on a second channel carried TVB's programme. Moreover TVB could only increase their advertising revenue by ensuring that more wireless receivers capable of taking only the TVB programme are in use. (We are not clear if they have a side interest in the manufacture of these receivers).
(b) RTV maintain that by carrying TVB's programme on a second channel they would not only be carrying out the task which they were licensed in 1957 to do, but also enable their viewers to have a full choice. Moreover TVB, they say, could with
/reason
NOTHING TO BE Written in this MARGIN