However, the American Football League and I object to CATV coming back and providing the games that we are playing in the various league cities, while the home team is playing at home. Here I have an advertisment from the Buffalo Courier Express, as recently as Sunday, February 27, 1966. It said: "Courier cable is here! Now being installed on these streets," and then a list of all the streets, "Soon to be installed everywhere." And then the various programs: sports, movies, and so on.

Under "sports," it has hockey from Canada, at-home pro football, basketball, baseball, horse racing, you name it.

In previous ads, they have gone on to say that the cheapest seat that you can get for the Buffalo Bills-I am just citing that case, because I am very familiar with it-is a $3 end-zone seat. It says, "why take time driving all the way out and getting in the rush at the stadium and having parking problems and so on, when you can have a 50-yard-line seat for 16 cents?"

Well, that's a little tough to beat, when you compare $3 to 16 cents. We all like to save money, and especially if it is a real cold day, or raining, like it is out there today, if you can sit at home and enjoy the hospitality of the living room, that's exactly where you are going to be.

We have searched for a method of protecting the integrity of our blackout areas. We feel that this protection is of small value unless we can find some effective method of enforcement against those who would violate those rights which have been given us.

We appeared last year before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee requesting that we be given authority to copyright all games simultaneously with the original telecast. We feel that this would afford us the much needed protection. However, we feel that this committee could provide this protection in a more expeditious and less involved manner.

The members of this committee are all familiar with section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which reads:

No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall knowingly utter or transmit, or cause to be uttered or transmitted, any false or fraudulent signal of distress or communication relating thereto, nor shall any broadcasting station rebroadcast the program or any part thereof of another broadcasting station without the express authority of the originating station.

We respectfully request that H.R. 13286 be amended to provide that section 325 (a) be amended to provide that no telecasting station, as well as no broadcasting station, shall retelecast a professional league football game or any part thereof of another telecasting station without the express authority of the originating station.

We believe this would give us the protection we desire.

Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the members of this committee.

Mr. Rogers?

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Foss, you have the right to refuse to permit your games to be televised in the first instance, do you not?

Mr. Foss. Yes, sir; in the contract, we draw it out and specifically spell it out.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Well, what I am getting at is this: You do allow the televising of your programs in certain areas, because of economic reasons and the amount of money you get.

Mr. Foss. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. But you do not want those games televised back into the area where you are playing, because you want the people to come to the stadium to see the game.

Mr. Foss. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Well, now, what about the people that are sick and in the hospitals, and can't get out?

Mr. Foss. Well, sir, in every situation, there is no way that you can legislate to take care of everyone. That I have found in the past. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. We find that out every day. [Laughter.] Mr. Foss. You can't do it honestly, and be all things to all people, and I have worked with the physically handicapped and the mentally handicapped since early 1940, and I understand their problems, but in order to take care of the great and vast majority of the people, and do it in such a way that the league could exist, we still have to black out in the area, and I realize there are some people that it would hurt, especially the shut-ins.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. But you would feel that your problem could be settled, I see you say, by an amendment to section 325(a), and I do not quite understand your reasoning. You say, "another telecasting station." Now the thing is this: that if the CATV operation was a broadcast station, there wouldn't be any question at all but that the FCC would have jurisdiction of it.

I gather that you want a prohibition put in the act that your football games can't be put on wire communication, or radio signals, in the blacked-out areas.

Mr. Foss. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. And that would satisfy you. You do not go to the extent that you think that the Federal Communications Commission as a Federal bureau ought to have regulatory powers over a business, do you?

Mr. Foss. I am one of the first guys to run for high land on_that. I would say I do not want to get involved in that. [Laughter.] Mr. ROGERS of Texas. You mean if we will take care of the football situation, you will be satisfied.

Mr. Foss. Being down here, I am going to just stick to the one particular presentation that I have made, and questions pertaining

thereto.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Foss.

Mr. Foss. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer?

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Foss, you have a contract, do you not, with a certain radio or television and radio network for the broadcast of your games. Isn't that correct?

Mr. Foss. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. And the same as the National Football League, that is up for a bid, and you sell that to the highest bidder.

Mr. Foss. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Isn't there a provision in your contract that there shall not be any reproductions of this broadcast in certain areas on home games? Isn't that in the contract?

Mr. Foss. Well, while the game is in progress we have the blackout area for the home team, and the stations that carry the games there are blacked out for that game, and they know it ahead of time.

Mr. SPRINGER. And that has been your contract with the network which broadcasts that particular game?

Mr. Foss. That is right.

Mr. SPRINGER. All right. You can broadcast that, in an area 75 miles beyond the limits of the city. Isn't that about it?

Mr. Foss. We attempt to protect the home territory of a member club when a home game is being played which is approximately 75 miles, more or less.

Mr. SPRINGER. Last year, you had that with what network?

Mr. Foss. Last year, our first year of a 5-year contract with NBC, previous to that time, it was ABC for the first 5 years.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now when someone takes that signal off the air and runs that back to Buffalo, then that is a violation of NBC's contract, isn't it?

Mr. Foss. Not if it were under CATV. It would not be a violation. Mr. SPRINGER. Now I am saying that you say, and there is at the end of any reproduction of this program, and you say that before it goes on the broadcast, don't you, any reproduction of this program is prohibited?

Mr. Foss. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. Without the authority of the American Football League or association? Isn't that true?

Mr. Foss. That is correct.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now when CATV takes that signal from the air, they are in violation of that contract, aren't they, and that prohibition? Mr. Foss. Not as I understand it, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. They are not?

Mr. LOVRE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the law is that it would not be in violation of the contract, so what we need is legislation-legislative remedy in order to protect the blackout area.

Last year, we appeared, and also the National Football League, before a judiciary subcommittee, trying to amend the copyright law to amend the definition of motion pictures, whereby the definition would include live telecasts of professional football games that are being taped simultaneously.

That bill is still pending in the Judiciary Committee. We feel that in addition to that, that we can also get similar protection by amending section 325A, and may I say this, Mr. Chairman-and I am prompted to say this on account of my good friend, Congressman Rogers this Congress in 1961 granted professional football leagues this blackout right.

This is the right you gave us. You gave us this in 1961. The right to blackout the home territory of a member club when a home game is being played for the reasons that the Commissioner has already testified to.

Now in addition to that, the court back in 1953, if my memory serves me correctly, also gave us that right. In other words, they said it is not in violation of the antitrust laws.

Now we know what is happening by virtue of CATV. The con missioner has already given you one example and I would like to refer by reference only to the hearings before the Judiciary Committee of last year, on page 1836 of the hearings, where there is an advertisement taken from the Buffalo Courier Express, on August 18, and here is what it says, if I can read it. It is awfully short.

It is the best entertainment available anywhere in western New York. Ft: instance, one package of cigarettes per day, 30 cents.

I am reading from the advertisement that appeared in the ad of the Courier on August 18, 1965.

Your Courier Cable, CATV, less than 16 cents per day. Cheapest ticket for Buffalo professional football game, $3 (end zone); Courier Cable CAT per day, 16 cents, 50-yard line.

Then it come to this, and this is what we are getting at mainly. and once again, this is a quote from the ad that you will find in th hearings of the Judiciary of last year on page 1836. It says "Sports No more driving to Erie to watch blacked out ball games played home."

All we are getting to, is right there. In other words, we are asking you to give us the protection to a right that you gave us by legislatio in 1961, and which was also given to us by the court back in 1953, ani we feel that the amendment to section 325 will do the trick.

Now if there is any other way, any other place that you can giv us protection for the right that you gave us, it is immaterial to us how it is done. The only thing is that we want to protect, and while I on that point I would like unanimous consent that this article be serted in the record. It is an article written by Dale Brady appearing in the Sunday, March 13, 1966, edition of the Washington Post entitled "Community Antennas Puts Sports Telecasts in Peril."

I would like to ask unanimous consent that this be inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure that it can be. It can be put into the files. What are the contents thereof?

Mr. LOVRE. It is an article by a sportswriter.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if it is appropriate, it will, and if not, it will be in the files.

(The document referred to can be found in the committee files. Mr. LOVRE. SO, Mr. Chairman, that is really the substance of o request. Just a protection of the rights that you gave us.

Mr. SPRINGER. All right, now, Mr. Foss, the point that I am trying to get at, when you come up for your next contract in 1960-what? Mr. Foss. It will be 1970. Actually it will be negotiated, come for-in 1969.

Mr. SPRINGER. This is what we are talking about, when we mentio trends. When Mr. Watson says "trends" he is not talking about this minute. He has to be talking about economics as of last fall. We are talking about trends, and this is awfully important. If all of the games are received by CATV and as CATV expands during

oming years, and they can bring these into the homes of people in the rea, and the probabilities are, if I myself felt that I could get them for 6 cents, and did not have to pay $3 to $5 to get a ticket, I might do myself.

Now, is your contract going to be worth anything in 1970, if everyody can receive the home game at home?

Mr. Foss. Absolutely not a thing. You see, this is the thing we re afraid of, and it is a point that has not been mentioned previously y us today. It would disintegrate our worth as far as having a levision package is concerned.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now just one further thing.

Would you tell us what your 5-year contract with NBC is; how uch was it?

That is not including With those two games

Mr. Foss. It was for a total of $36 million. e all-star game, or the championship game. rown in, it is a total package of $42,700,000. Mr. SPRINGER. May I say to you, Colonel Foss, that if I was neotiating for NBC in 1970, I don't think I would negotiate a contract ith you, if you can receive this on CATV at home for no cost at all. ow that is what I think of your contract in 1970, if it continues in the ime trend that you are going at the present time.

Thank you, Mr. Foss.

Mr. Foss. Thank you. That is the thing that we are concerned with, r. Springer.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. I wonder, Mr. Foss, would you examine the possibility renegotiating this contract with the networks, to include the proction generally in the amendment that you have set forth to the mmittee today?

Mr. Foss. It would not-the network would not be able to afford › protection against CATV, You see, we are all right with the netorks. We provide in our contract for protection. Take for instance in Diego. In the contract that we drew up, we specified that the ations to the north would have to be blacked out because they were cking up the strong signal in San Diego from that, and we found at it was just cutting down attendance at the games.

Mr. DINGELL. What I am asking you, though, specifically is this. ou make it very plain that CATV can, and I suspect probably will, fact I join you in your apprehension-have a damaging effect on the stations which carry your signals who are essentially blacked t. But what I am trying to find out now is, have you approached e networks to secure protection for yourself and for stations who uld carry your signals, subject to the contract, from possible imirment by operators of CATV?

Mr. Foss. No, we have not, and we don't have the right to do that. Mr. DINGELL. Why not? You can certainly discuss it with them? Mr. Foss. Oh, I have talked to some of the people about it, but there > not been any move on to get them highly involved in the thing. It not, as far as I am concerned, as commissioner, their duty to seek tthat protection for us.

Mr. DINGELL. What I am saying is have you talked to the networks? Mr. Foss. I have talked to some of the people at the networks.

62-610-66-17