TNAG-0265-FCO40-301-Legislation-for-copyright-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 112

>

>

CONFIDENTIAL

(1) aerial distribution systems (CATV and ADS) for wireless

television broadcasts should not be the subject of monopoly by any one company, particularly if that company operates a wired transmission television service which requires no aerials at all and if its

commercial interests are opposed to the expansion of wireless television broadcasting. The sole object

of such systems is to enable the public to obtain good

reception of television programmes broadcast over the air and such systems are quite separate and distinct

from wired television broadcast services such as that

operated by RTV:

(2)

There are many buildings in the urban areas of Hong Kong where an aerial on a building itself (ADS) will

be ineffective, so that a community aerial system (CATV) will be required. It is not right that mem- bers of the public in such locations should be com-

pelled to go to only one company for their reception equipment, with no guarantee that that company will

be able and willing to instal such equipment or that

its charges for doing so will be reasonable. There

or if

is no incentive for RTV to instal systems for members

of the public to receive wireless television programmes

only: TVB are accordingly concerned as to what the

position would be if RTV were unable or unwilling to instal such systems; or if the latter would do so

only if its own service were also installed;

its charges for doing so were too high: (3) that certain technical conditions in RTV's exclusive

licence not only make it clear that the licence does

not confer on RTV any exclusive rights over communal aerial systems, but that it expressly prohibits RTV from operating a system of this kind. (4) that a clear distinction should be drawn between

equipment needed to give good reception for wireless

television broadcasts and the wired television service which is properly the monopoly of RTV.

CONFIDENTIAL

/20.