CONFIDENTIAL
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 it in fact be possible to get the two sides together now to sort out the facts 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 was Mr. Oldridge himself. TVB is presumably still in Mr. H.W. Lee's hands.
4. Another consideration which may be easier to assess in 1970, now that TVB have had a couple of years of operation, is whether the predictions of 1967 of the result of RTV's contemporaneously relaying the TVB programme over wire are more easily assessable or likely to be borne out. Put very briefly they were:
(a) TVB could not operate commercially and 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 means of a continuous increase in the number of wireless receiving sets 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 would enable their viewers to have a full choice. Moreover, TVB they say, could with reason claim the right to raise their advertising charges (and thus increase their profit) because of the increased audience. The value to RTV would of course be that they might attract further subscribers, but this would not detract from TVB's revenue. In their view, therefore, both RTV and TVB stand to gain.
We should very much like to know whether the experience of the last two years has caused you to reach any firm conclusion as to the relative validity of the arguments at (a) and (b) above.
5. If further consultations, in the light of experience during the period 1967-1970, were to convince the two parties that RTV's ideas had something in them for both sides and if, as a result, TVB agreed not to press for the legislation aimed at RTV, it seems to me that in return RTV might well be ready to concede the case on aerials. This would make it possible for TVB (or anyone else duly licensed for the purpose) to erect and use ADS aerials as and when necessary. Would you agree that it was worthwhik to try and cut the Gordian know by getting the two sides together, perhaps under Government chairmanship? If this led to agreement and hence to there being no need to include in your local legis- lation the contentious clauses at present envisaged; and if in consequence Parliamentary obstruction there was unlikely then this
CONFIDENTI
/would
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.