Scrambling of NFL Telecasts Opposed : Television: San Diego congressman, citing wide support in Washington, will introduce a bill to prohibit such action.

Congressional opposition to the scrambling of NFL telecasts has begun forming in Washington, with a San Diego congressman announcing Tuesday that he intends to introduce “de-scrambling” legislation after Congress reconvenes Sept. 4.

Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) claims to have the backing of “30 to 40” senators and congressmen.

Said Greg Aiello, the NFL’s director of communications: “We don’t have a reaction. It’s a speculative situation, so we would react at the time . . . if something happens.”

Rep. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin (D-La.), a ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, said he opposes scrambling.

“The American public is already paying for (NFL football) in the form of advertising subsidies when they buy those products at the supermarkets,” Tauzin said in a statement. “Therefore, those signals--those games--should not be scrambled.”

Tauzin’s press secretary, Chris Robichaux, said Tauzin would not oppose NFL scrambling as long as the league made available “fair and reasonable” de-scrambling packages.

However, the NFL has said that no such option will be available--except on ESPN and TNT, which will televise some night games as part of the new four-year agreement. ABC’s “Monday Night Football” also will not be scrambled.

Games on CBS will be “fully scrambled” by Sept. 9. NBC’s $5-million scrambling technology is expected to be in place by mid-season.

Congressional opposition to scrambling was also heard from Senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Albert Gore (D-Tenn.). Roy Neel, administrative assistant to Gore, said the senator “respects the NFL’s lawful right to protect its copyrighted signals” but to “freeze out” millions of rural viewers across the country who watch games via satellite dish would be “a terrible blow.”

Pat Meehan, an aide to Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania, said Meehan believes that Congress has been “too soft” on professional sports leagues, particularly in regard to antitrust legislation. By being entitled to such exemptions, Meehan said, the NFL and other sports leagues are “obligated by law” to make their products available, through television, “at no charge.”

“If the professional sports leagues want their antitrust exemptions, there should be no charge to the viewers,” Specter testified in May before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.

Meehan said that fears about antitrust violations are “probably the very reason” the league is not making available a de-scrambling alternative, “which, in the eyes of some, would constitute pay-per-view.”

He and others pointed out, however, that through a variety of cable services, major league baseball and the NBA offer de-scrambling options available only through an authorized decoder and the payment of a fee.

In San Diego, opposition to scrambling heated up Monday night at a meeting attended by 65 backers of the Assn. for Sports Fans’ Rights, a Southern California group formed by restaurateur Norman Lebovitz.

Lebovitz said that he has received “hundreds” of calls from Orange and Los Angeles counties, as well as other parts of the country, since the NFL announced its scrambling decision Aug. 17.

“I’m excited--we’re not going to lose,” Lebovitz said.

“If the NFL had as much intelligence as wealth, they would figure out a way to make this work and back out gracefully right now. I don’t see anybody this isn’t affecting, from the rural farmer who will have no access to professional football, to the average guy on the street, to the congressman or senator. The reaction is overwhelming.”

Lebovitz said his organization is contemplating a partnership with a Miami-based group, United Sports Fans of America, “which would then put our membership over 4,000.”

The Miami group has been involved in litigation with the NFL, as have interests in other cities. But as Val Pinchbeck, the NFL vice president in charge of broadcasting, said, the league has won “each and every” court case in which television was an issue.

The San Diego meeting was also attended by Capitol Hill lobbyist Glenn Jensen, who works for a Delaware-based organization called C-SAT Broadcasting, which he described as a grass-roots effort designed to protect the interests of satellite dish owners.

Jensen said the NFL’s stated reason for scrambling--that it protects local affiliates and thus local advertisers--is “nonsense.” He said the league’s sole reason for not offering a de-scrambling package is its fear of antitrust legislation, “which is its No. 1 concern and always has been. It’s a monopoly that has to protect the monopoly. The only way to do that is through an antitrust exemption.”

Jensen that said the timing of the NFL’s announcement was “calculated” to have “the least impact, when congressmen and senators and telecommunications aides are on holiday or up to their eyeballs in the conflict overseas. Don’t think the timing wasn’t perfectly planned.”

Chuck Hewitt, president of a national satellite group called the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Assn., said that his organization is not opposed to scrambling “per se” but wants the NFL to offer an alternative paid for by consumers.

Hewitt said he has done an informal study that shows how much money the NFL is missing by “turning its back” on a de-scrambling option.

“A lot of people think they’re greedy,” he said. “But in this case, I think they’re just being stupid. I don’t think they’d have any trouble with antitrust either, because this is what the fans want (a de-scrambling alternative).”

Hewitt said his study shows that if 50,000 of the estimated 200,000 bars and restaurants in the country equipped with satellite technology were willing to pay $300 a month for NFL de-scrambling, “that’s $15 million a month they’re saying no to.

“I’ll tell you who wins in this scenario. The crooks do, that’s who. It isn’t that hard to unscramble any scrambled signal--it’s being done all over the country. So, by not offering a de-scrambling option, the NFL is just handing over revenue--millions of it--to pirates all over the country.

“Their decision is bad for bars, bad for restaurants, bad for consumers, bad for the satellite industry--but most of all, it’s bad for the NFL. They’re the biggest losers of all.”