signals directly out of the air from regular broadcast stations if only the cas tomers desired to do so and wished so to spend their money.

NBC does not believe that the programing available on free television shock be used as the base for the creation of a pay-television service. NBC has opposed the use of broadcast frequencies for pay television and does not believe that the antenna systems primarily designed as part of the distribution system for free broadcast programs should also be used to provide a form of pay-televisio: service.

Therefore, CATV systems should be confined to distributing free broadcast signals without alteration or addition, just as a television antenna would receive the signal. Although there have been attempts to define pay television in terms only of putting money in a coinbox or paying for it program by program (testimony of Frederick W. Ford, president of NCTA, on H.R. 7715, before Subcommittee on Communications and Power of House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, June 2, 1965, pp. 267–268; testimony of Mr. Ford on H.R. 4347, etc., before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, June 24, 1965 (pp. 1504-1507, 1524), it is clear that payment of a monthly connection charge for a program service without regard to the programs actually watched, as in Bartlesville, Okla., is equally a form of pay television (statement of Chairman Oren Harris at hearing on H.R. 7715, June 2, 1965, p. 268).

Programs not generally available to the audience for free television programs should not be made available to the customers of the CATV system, even though the charge for receiving the total service of the CATV system is not ostensibly increased, as this would be merely another device to promote pay television through the inclusion of the additional charge as part of the cost of the total CATV service. This is the case whether the programs not generally available are furnished on a separate channel not used to bring in a broadcast signal or are placed on channels used for broadcast signals during periods when those signals are not being carried by the CATV systems.

The only exception should be for noncommercial time and weathr services and locally originated programs on behalf of nonprofit organizations-activities which generally cannot be regarded as the type of service which would be profitable from a pay-television standpoint but would provide an additional service to the CATV system's customers. These could be carried on an otherwise unused channel and would not interfere with the transmission of the regular broadcast stations' signals.

(4) All signals should be carried by CATV systems without material degradation and, where practicable, on the channel on which the originating station is transmitting

NBC believes that legislation with regard to CATV systems should empower the Commission to establish technical standards to assure that all signals are carried by CATV systems without material degradation and where practicable on the channel on which the originating station is transmitting. Such a requirement would in most cases not be burdensome, and would contribute to the value of CATV systems' distribution of broadcast signals on a basis convenient to the audience.

There does not seem to be much dispute with regard to either of these general requirements.

(5) Broadcast station licensees should not be discriminated against in the orraership and operation of CATV systems

Broadcaster ownership of CATV systems should be permitted and encouraged. CATV is a form of providing the signals of broadcast stations to the public, rather than of originating programing.

Broadcasters have a special incentive to provide as intensive television service as possible within the service areas of television stations licensed to them and on the fringes of such service areas. In this way, the audience to their regular broadcast stations would be increased, and their regular broadcast operation would benefit. As Commissioner Loevinger has stated:

"This policy is consistent with antitrust principles, for the relationship be tween television broadcasting stations and CATV's, in economic terms, is vertical. or complementary, rather than horizontal, or competitive. Thus, common ownership of television stations and CATV's is vertical integration, which is per missible so long as there is no threat of foreclosing the market to competitors.

A

h the degree of Government supervision now existing in this field, it seems r that there is no possibility of excluding competitors from access to a ket." ("The Future of Television," address by Commissioner Loevinger to Colorado Broadcasters Association, June 11, 1965, p. 12.)

or should there be any prohibition against broadcasters owning and operating TV systems in areas other than those served by stations licensed to them. sons who are licensed in the public interest to operate broadcast stations are ainly qualified to engage in the operation of CATV systems. Insofar as danger of concentration of control of the area of communications through the ership of CATV systems is concerned, CATV systems increase the number roadcast signals provided to an area, contribute to the diversity of comications, and reduce any possible danger of concentration of control. BC believes that if the above provisions were adopted as the base for reguon of all CATV systems, whether served by microwave relays or not, more iled regulation of the type proposed in the notice would be unnecessary; 'V could flourish as an integral part of the national system of free television dcasting, serving its purpose as a supplement to the broadcast service; and economic forces of the marketplace could continue to operate without unssary Government intrusion and regulation.

INSOFAR AS CATV IS CONCERNED, NO DISTINCTION SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN ANSLATORS, SATELLITES, BOOSTERS OR OTHER REPEATERS AND REGULAR BROADST STATIONS-THERE IS ALSO NO NEED TO ADOPT RULES TO PRECLUDE TRANSTORS FROM DUPLICATING THE PROGRAMS OF LOCAL STATIONS

1 paragraph 36 of the notice, questions are raised with regard to the relations of CATV systems to translator stations, and the relationships of transrs to other types of local broadcast stations.

s NBC stated in its comments in dockets Nos. 14895 and 15233, insofar as V is concerned there is no basis for a distinction between television stations h originate local programing and satellites, boosters, repeaters, or trans

rs.

tellites in particular sometimes broadcast very few hours of local programat the start and then gradually develop a number of locally originated prous. Translators, boosters, and repeaters often fill in holes in a regular ion's coverage area. All of them provide free service generally over subtial areas. It should be noted that the Commission in Black Hills Viedo poration (FCC 65–584, July 2, 1965) recently accorded the same treatment 'ATV systems operating in communities served by satellite stations (even gh the satellite originated no local programing) if the parent station of the llite is not carried on the CATV system.

he Commission also poses the question of whether there is a problem ranting action in connection with the duplication by translators of the rams of local stations. No such problem exists, because section 325(a) ady requires translators to obtain the consent of the originating station, h in turn requires the originating station or the translator to obtain the ent of any program suppliers.

October 1960, NBC adopted a general policy, applicable in most situations, ranting its consent to translator or repeater stations to rebroadcast NBC ́ision network programs provided the translator or repeater station was ed closer to the transmiter site of the television broadcast station whose rams it was rebroadcasting than to the transmitter site on any other tele›n broadcast station affiliated with the NBC television network.

a few recent situations where the translator operated in a community or served by another television broadcast station which carried some, but not , of the NBC television network programs, NBC limited its rebroadcast ent so as to exclude from that consent all programs carried by the local

on.

hese nonduplication provisions have, so far as NBC is aware, never caused difficulty. This is another indication that the amendment to section 325(a) d above to require CATV systems to obtain the consent of the originating on would solve many of the important problems caused by the operation ATV systems, just as that requirement now does in the case of translators other repeater stations.

CONCLUSION

The Commission does not now have the authority to adopt the rules proposed with respect to nonmicrowave CATV systems.

Based on provisions outlined above, the Commission should obtain the authority to regulate all CATV systems, but such regulation should be limited to that necessary to integrate CATV systems into the national system of free television broadcasting and to confine them to a role supplemental to the broadcast service. Respectfully submitted.

Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As president of Taft Broadcasting Co., I am writing this letter with respect to the current hearings of your committee on CATV bills H.R. 13286 and H.R. 12914. I am sorry that I have not been able to be with you during the hearings. I would, however, appreciate it if this letter and the accompanying speeches are printed as a part of the hearings record.

Taft is the licensee of seven television and five AM and FM radio stations in Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Buffalo, N.Y.; Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; Lexington, Ky.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Kansas City, Mo. As broadcasters, in particular, but also as members of the public, we at Taft are most interested in and concerned about the work your committee is doing in the most important area of CATV.

The two bills now before your committee relate intimately to the new Federal Communications Commission rules with respect to CATV's. In my view, those rules are a good start toward the fostering of development of CATV and the protection and perservation of the public's interest in free television. Although those rules are not entirely adequate and while it would have been advantageons to the public interest had the Commission acted more promptly, nonetheless most aspects of the new rules deserve the support of Congress and the public.

I cannot support H.R. 12914. In my judgment, both the intent and the effect of that bill, were it to be enacted into law, would be to prevent effective regulation of CATV by the FCC. This would, in turn, pave the way for the substantial impairment or destruction by burgeoning CATV of free broadcasting as we know it today. CATV unregulated can only lead to the American people paying, tomorrow, for what they enjoy free, today.

I support H.R. 13286. It is my understanding that the FCC already has the necessary authority to regulate CATV insofar as it affects broadesting in the public interest. However, I am not a lawyer. If there is any doubt as to whether authority to regulate CATV's has been delegated by Congress to the FCC, it should be dispelled.

In addition, as the two attached speeches show, I oppose CATV's taking for nothing and without permission the programs for which broadcasters pay a great deal. The essential unfairness of permitting a broadcaster to be shot with his own gun must be eliminated. There is no possible justification for permitting such CATV larceny. The equitable and necessary minimum requirement for CATV's should be that they obtain the consent of the originating station before retransmitting its programs.

These aspects of the new Commission rules seem to me to particularly warrant careful consideration by your committee.

Six of Taft's seven television stations, including one UHF station, WNEP-TV (Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Pa.), are located in the top 100 markets. Our large market VHF stations are the most profitable facet of Tafet's broadcasting operations. As a broadcaster operating a UHF station in a market well below the top

however, I am not at all satisfied with the FCC's determination to provide effective CATV regulations in large markets than in small. I see no justifireason why small broadcasters should be considered second-class citizens. e Commission is convinced that substantial regulation of CATV's in major ets is necessary if new UHF stations are to be encouraged. But it sur's my understanding why encouraging a fourth or fifth station in a big city ore important than encouraging a first or second station in a small town. uld appear that the Commission has not only made small-town broadcasters d-class citizens, but also the persons they serve.

reover, in the top 100 markets, the Commission has adopted a scheme of ntiary hearings upon the mere request of a CATV operator who wants to rt distant city signals into the local station's market. Rather than proing such inmportation *** which will transform 3 station markets into 12 station markets *** with a provision for waivers only after a clear ing that the public interest in free broadcasting will not be impaired, the nission has adopted a scheme by which CATV operators can wrap the Comon's staff in procedural redtape. Protracted hearings, petitions for rederation, court appeals, and other delay tactics by hundreds of CATV oprs can and I fear will delay for years the effective implementation of the rules.

are at the CATV crossroads, largely because of past Commmission delays, annot wait until the 1970's to insure that free broadcasting is not strangled noose of coaxial cable. I would urge you, therefore, to call upon the Comon to close this delay loophole in its new rules and to meet its responsibility aerican viewers now.

th regard to the need for prompt and effective FCC regulation of CATV rtation of distant signals, I commend to you the testimony at these hearof Thomas P. Shelburne, general manager of WNEP-TV in Scranton-Wilkes2. Nowhere is the threat of CATV transforming local broadcasting into vision suburb of New York City more imminent than it is in northeastern sylvania.

its new rules the Commission has also done away with almost all nontaneous nonduplication protection. It seems to me axiomatic that pre least duplication is even more injurious to local broadcasting than simulus duplication. A local station can hope to split the audience with a taneously duplicating distance signal piped in by CATV. But when a prois carried by CATV 1, 2, or more days before the local station broadcasts st of the local station's potential audience is gone.

minating nonsimultaneous nonduplication protection hurts the little broadr more than the big city broadcaster. Most cities with three or more stahave three full-network affiliates carrying almost all network programs on delayed basis. But in small towns with only one or two stations, network ams frequently must be delayed if the people are to be able to see the best >rk programs available because the local stations must carry more than one ›rk.

e of the most serious weaknesses of CATV is that it does not serve rural icans. This same kind of weakness should not be included in the rules of CC. At basic principle of FCC regulation in this vital area should be that -town broadcasting is entitled to the same encouragement and protection as ty broadcasting. Free local broadcasting is important to all Americans and not be allowed to be subverted by CATV or any other form of pay television. Respectfully yours,

LAWRENCE H. ROGERS II,

President.

CATV: THE EQUITIES OF REGULATION

address by Lawrence H. Rogers II, President, Taft Brondensting Co, before International Radio & Television Society, Inc., Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New k. N.Y., January 19, 1966)

- hardly necessary to say what a pleasure it is to share this platform. Every nows that every broadcaster considers it a pleasure whenever he can get e to listen to him on any subject from any platform.

ertheless, I am especially pleased with this opportunity to set the record hat concerning my presumed opposition to CATV,

Last year at this time, IRTS extended this platform to my friend. Fred Ford. to expatiate upon the merits of unregulated CATV. I was among those who called to the attention of IRTS that they might perhaps invoke the "Fairness Doctrine" in order to present a more balanced opinion on the subject. I am grateful indeed the suggestion has been followed.

However, as a broadcaster who has had considerable experience in the field of editorial comment, I live in almost daily communion with the "Fairness Dotrine." If I were to follow the insistent demands of many vocal listeners to Taft station editorials, I should have to point out that this cycle of fairness is stil incomplete. Last year Fred Ford got the whole hour. This year I get to share it with Ben Conroy.

Perhaps this is what is meant by traveling "half-fair.”

Having started with a couple of puns, I may as well make it worse. The fact is the continued burgeoning growth of CATV with no vestige of regulation is not only "half-fair" *** it's not fair at all.

Carrying on this play on words, one might say that as an infant industry CATV was probably entitled to a free ride; but as it grew up it should have gone on half-fare. And now the time is long past due when CATV ought to pay full fare for its free ride on the program property of others.

I am not opposed to CATV. What a ridiculous notion. I welcome it as a valuable adjunct of broadcasting. I welcome it as a legitimate entry into the marketplace, adding diversity to the Nation's already incredible complex system of mass communications. I welcome the opportunity to participate in it as a legitimate and lucrative business.

I came here to appraise CATV; not to bury it. I came here to represent the public's interest in CATV, and the interest of maintaining property rights. Maintenance of property rights is absolutely inseparable from the public interest.

It is widely supposed that on February 10, next, the Federal Communications Commission will formalize the proposed rules governing CATV which it published last year. I strongly support these proposals. I urge your strong support of them. They are a minimum set of standards that must be applied as a matter of simple equity pending the ultimate outcome of litigation to establish property rights in the field of television programing.

With the behemoths of proregulation and antiregulation locked in their titanie struggle, there is frequently more heat than light generated by the subject. I believe the issue in a very few years without application of sensible regulation could best be clarified by a simple story now in vogue:

It concerns a poor fellow breathing nearly his last in an oxygen tent. His physician found his condition so grave he called for a priest to administer the last rites. After some difficulty a monsignor was located who could come at once to the hospital. As he stood by the bed in his long black robe, the patiert. much impressed by the high rank of the cleric, raised up on his elbows to greet him. But, as the poor wretch tried to speak, he only turned purple in the face; no sounds escaped his lips. He tried again, coloring deeply, but could not even whisper.

The monsignor, well-equipped, reached into his robe for a pad and pencil which he thrust into the tent.

"Easy my son," he said. "Don't tire yourself. Just write what you want to tell me."

With an enormous effort, the man scribbled on the small white pad, then collapsed on his pillow and died.

Aghast, the monsignor reached for the pad. Crudely written thereon was the following message:

"You are standing on my hose."

Broadcasters are charged with the responsibility of determining and then fulfilling the needs of our communities and providing a viable program service in order to justify our licenses. We believe we are entitled to the minimum assurance that the sanctity of our contracts for program material can be preserved. As the matter of programing becomes daily more difficult, more expensive, and more competitive, we believe we are entitled to a minimum of legal protection for our program storage tanks. We believe we should have some safeguards to keep the CATV industry from standing on, or cutitng off, our hose.

We seek only equity in the assurance that the availability of our signals to be picked up off the air-free-and sold to parts of our potential audience, does not become the means of cutting off the very supply of programs that makes CATV possible in the first place.