The early development of cable TV was famously hobbled by the broadcasters' lobby, which fought hard to keep the cable competition from emerging. But the broadcasters weren't alone: Owners of movie theaters worried they'd lose business if people could watch more films at home. As Glenn Garvin wrote recently in Reason,
Subscription Television Inc.
a California outfit called Subscription Television Inc….offered a three-channel system featuring major-league baseball, first-run films, and a handful of tony cultural and educational programs. Put together by Pat Weaver, the disgruntled former NBC programmer who invented both the Today and Tonight shows, Subscription Television created so much buzz during its few months on the air in 1964 that it triggered the greatest Hollywood miracle since Cecil B. DeMille parted the Red Sea: America's TV executives and movie-theater operators, blood enemies from birth, united to make war on the newcomer. Running ads with headlines like "This Could Be the Last World Series on Free TV," they launched a pogrom that ended with a public referendum outlawing pay TV in California.
The spectacle of industries using the ballot box to outlaw competitors without even the faintest pretext of nobler purpose was so appalling that Time was moved to wonder if it would become a regular feature of the American economy: "A united front of gluemakers, for example, might collect enough votes to ban the manufacture of Scotch tape. Chrysler could war on General Motors. Whichever collected the fewest votes would die a corporate death." Courts would eventually overturn the referendum, but by then Subscription Television's contractors and investors were gone with the regulatory wind.
In 1969, theater owners went on another "Save Free TV" crusade, lobbying congressmen for protection and showing anti-cable clips before features. Here's an artifact of that campaign:
The most transparently disingenuous line: "Pay TV and cable TV companies are seeking the right to charge you for the very programs you now get free!" Right. That's how companies planned to make money from cable: by persuading people to pay for shows they could already watch without paying. Not by offering them programs they otherwise couldn't see.
Bonus links: If you think these protectionist crusades are just a thing of the past, wise up here. For past installments of the Friday A/V Club, go here.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
The spectacle of industries using the ballot box to outlaw competitors without even the faintest pretext of nobler purpose was so appalling that Time was moved to wonder if it would become a regular feature of the American economy...
Thank God we dodged that bullet. They don't even need a ballot box, just the ear of a regulator or two.
What's even crazier is that it's a journalist saying that. And one who works for Time at that. Can you imagine a journalist outside of reason saying that today?
At one time, there were newspapers which pointed out that FDR was trying to establish the office of President for Life.
Now, they just tell us how wonderful he was.
The spectacle of industries using the ballot box to outlaw competitors without even the faintest pretext of nobler purpose was so appalling that Time was moved to wonder if it would become a regular feature of the American economy...
Thank God we dodged that bullet. They don't even need a ballot box, just the ear of a regulator or two.
What's even crazier is that it's a journalist saying that. And one who works for Time at that. Can you imagine a journalist outside of reason saying that today?
At one time, there were newspapers which pointed out that FDR was trying to establish the office of President for Life.
Now, they just tell us how wonderful he was.
What's even crazier...
I don't recall acknowledging anything was crazy.
It's a comment by you. Crazy is implied, you loon.
By the by, they're still running ad campaigns against cable television.
"A united front of gluemakers, for example, might collect enough votes to ban the manufacture of Scotch tape."...
I seem to remember something about candle-makers...
"America's TV executives and movie-theater operators, blood enemies from birth, united to make war on the newcomer"
Thank god libertarians have never had to put up with entrenched interests in this way.
So, the NAB has always been composed of nothing more than rent-seeking scumbags.