Mr. WASILEWSKI. It would occure to me that approximately 200 stations would not be covered. As a pure guess momentarily 15 or 20 percent of the people. Mr. KORNEGAY. I believe that is all. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Keith. Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I have not come to as many of these hearings as I would like. I recognize that it is very significant legislation. I am on another committee that is very time consuming. As I understand your position there would be no authority for CATV to sort of replay a program within a short period of time after it had been taped and played by another network. Is that right? Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir; that would be my desire. Mr. KEITH. I am trying to find authority in this legislation for public interest programs. Like, for example, city council meetings or the kind of program that the Senate put on the other day? Mr. WASILEWSKI. This legislation is, as I understand it, sir, as proposed by the FCC, would give to the FCC the authority to make exceptions to allow that. Mr. KEITH. It would seem to me that there might be a court case if the FCC did make a ruling under the first section of this proposed legislation, the Commission shall, as a public interest where the need requires, have this authority. Certainly it would be in the public interest to view any program put on under the public affairs proviso of the current regulations, is that not so? Mr. WASILEWSKI. Sir, I am sorry. Mr. KEITH. My point is that most radio stations, and I believe most television stations, do a lot of programing for which there is no sponsor except the station and the public in effect. Mr. WASILEWSKI. That is right. Mr. KEITH. It would seem to me that it would be adverse to the public interest to deny anybody with the equipment available to capture that filming and to relay it to CATV network. Mr. WASILEWSKI. Sir, according to my understanding of the proposed legislation as introduced by the chairman there are exceptions allowed along that line in 331 (b) of the proposed legislation. In other words, to permit such transmission without additional charge to subscribers under certain limited exceptions. Mr. KEITH. I am not familiar, I have not read the details and I probably would not have properly interpreted it if I had read it but under section (a) where the public interest is involved you have a built-in protection that would seem to me for CATV showing of anyas a matter of fact, under the Constitution I would think the right of free speech and the right of the public to know as contrasted with, of course, property rights, and under other provisions, but it seems you run into a potential conflict here and it would give certain CATV outlets a lot of programing for free and one where you could not very well prohibit them taking advantage of the tremendous facilities that a large network would have to have in order to do an adequate job. I just wanted to get this into the record and your response to it as to whether or not in your view this legislation would permit in the public interest a substantial reproduction of programs which the public would have a need to see and the right to see. Mr. WASILEWSKI. In my opinion this legislation that you are considering, sir, would allow this exception and allow program originations in certain instances by CATV. Mr. KEITH. Would you care to comment as to the wisdom of that proviso? Mr. WASILEWSKI. The position of our organization is in opposition to program originations. I believe that this Congress would have the authority to preclude such originations even though I fully realize, sir, that there could be constitutional questions present. But I think in order to protect the allocations system of television broadcasting this committee and this Congress are so powerful in the area of interstate and foreign commerce regulation that they could preclude origination. Thus I do not believe that origination, across-the-board origination, by a CATV is in the public interest. Mr. KEITH. Even an across-the-board authority for public affairs programs and blanket authority on the part of Congress? Don't you think that the Supreme Court would be very quick to jump to the public's defense in a situation of that sort? Mr. WASILEWSKI. I don't know, sir. I really don't know. I have not given it any real thought. Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Deerlin. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I like to give as little work as possible to lawyers because they are so expensive, Mr. Wasilewski, but you have again made a number of good suggestions on proposed changes of the bill before the committee, H.R. 13286. I wonder if you might offer these in the form of amendments that the committee could consider since a number have been submitted by other parties. I think it would be well if you gave us something specific to work on. Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir. I would like to say that Mr. Rogers was overly kind. I should say I used to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer by training and background. But we will do what you say and I will see that it is done. (The information requested follows:) Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the recent hearings on H.R. 13286, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize the FCC to issue rules and regulations with respect to community antenna systems and for other purposes, you asked the National Association of Broadcasters to submit specific language for recommended changes in the bill. The following changes in H.R. 13286 would, in our opinion, be desirable: "(gg) Community antenna system' means any facility which, in whole or in part. receives the signals transmitted by broadcast stations and amplifies or otherwise modifies such signals and transmits same by wire or cable to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service." Section 331(a)(1): “to issue orders, make rules and regulations, and prescribe such conditions or restrictions with respect to the construction, technical characteristics, and operation of community antenna systems, to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, with due regard to the establishment and maintenance of multiple broadcast services." Section 331 (b): "No community antenna system shall transmit over its system any program or other material other than that which it has received over the air from a broadcast station and simultaneously transmits same." Add a new section as follows: "SEC. 332. No CATV system shall transmit over its system the signals of a broadcast station except with the express authority of the station." These changes are designed to make certain that CATV systems maintain their traditional role as a supplement to regular broadcast service by limiting them to the receipt and simultaneous transmission of broadcast signals without additions or deletions. It would be appreciated if these comments could be incorporated into the record. Sincerely, DOUGLAS A. ANELLO, Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Rogers of Texas was overly kind? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Adams. Mr. ADAMS. I have one question on a point. You said that CATV could tape and rebroadcast now. They indicated-the CATV representatives at the time they were here that this would be in violation of the copyright laws. Is that your position or not? Mr. WASILEWSKI. Sir, I have always been amazed at this position on the part of a CATV. My belief is that they are in violation of the copyright laws whether or not they tape and rebroadcast. Their agreement that requires copyright permission for them to tape and rebroadcast, to me is a distinction without a difference. What I am say ing is this, that under present law according to my interpretation and understanding of it, they are as free to tape and rebroadcast as they are to simultaneously transmit. Mr. ADAMS. That is your interpretation and it is opposed to this? Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAMS. The second point was with regard to the local origination which is presently being protected. You have listed on page 5 the premise under which we will-we are presently operating is protection of local originations and you have advocated this be done by broadcasting facilities. Should we reexamine the origination idea and beyond the networks which are presently protected under the proposed legislation allow CATV systems and the broadcast facilities to compete as to who will better provide the local community, local originations in terms of both scope, efficiency, and as Mr. Keith mentioned, the production of many, many local events which can be carried on multichannel CATV but cannot be carried by most local broadcasters because they have only one channel and have a great commitment as to time? What are your comments? Mr. WASILEWSKI. I don't believe that should be allowed because if it is, for example, it will be only a small nucleus of the community that will be served by this origination and if it is allowed to be rather widepsread eventually it will come to the point, I believe, where the local stations will be economically unable to provide any type of local origination of this type and thus the surrounding area will be deprived of any service whatsoever for people who cannot afford CATV. Mr. ADAMS. We are talking about maintaining protection, about nonduplication and so on for your basic produced programs which are network and the requirement that you carry the local station programs but in the area beyond that, that is a conflict as to whether or not the local service type program can be better carried by an independent UHF station, giving local effect, spreading the area or a CATV system which can originate local programing. What I am asking you, is this a new advance in the art and should we let them? Mr. WASILEWSKI. Sir, I don't believe it is necessarily a new development in the art. I think this has been a potenital technical capability for a long time. I don't think it should be allowed because I think by so doing then it effectively precludes the potentiality and the possibility of added broadcast service in that particular area, for example, a new UHF in many instances. However, I can see the need for exceptions in certain circumstances. Mr. ADAMS. What I am getting at, we may be perhaps better off, instead of regulating everything beyond this established pattern that we have now, to let the market determine whether or not people want CATV for these other alternate services or another UHF station. If nobody wants to buy the CATV the UHF station gets its share of the broadcast market. If, on the other hand, the people do not want the UHF and they want to go to a CATV system, should this be allowed as an area of market competition? Mr. WASILEWSKI. I would say that the CATV should not be allowed to do both; namely, to have off-the-air service, pick up and broadcast signals from afar, as well as to provide this program origination. I think it should be allowed to do one or the other and not both in concert. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wasilewski, for coming here and giving us the benefit of your views. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. If we can get permission from the House to sit at that time, our witness will be Mr. Lester Lindow, executive director of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Our first witness this afternoon will be Lester W. Lindow, executive director, Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc., Washington, D.C. Mr. Lindow, would you identify the gentleman who is with you, and then you may proceed. I notice that you have a lengthy statement. If you want to, you might summarize it. The statement will be included in the record in its entirety. STATEMENT OF LESTER W. LINDOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY ERNEST W. JENNES, LEGAL COUNSEL Mr. LINDOW. I appreciate that very much, sir, and I have a short summarization and analysis of the problem, which I would like to give at this time. The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. (The full statement follows:) TESTIMONY OF LESTER W. LINDOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC. My name is Lester W. Lindow. I am the executive director of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, consisting of more than 160 commercial and educational television broadcast stations. MST's member stations include both commercial and educational VHF and UHF stations serving a wide variety of large, medium size and small cities throughout the Nation. Since its organization in 1956, MST has been dedicated to the development, improvement, and expansion of a nationwide system of free, competitive television broadcast services. MST has given full support to efforts to foster the sound growth of UHF television. I would like to make the following basic points today: (1) Free, local, and area television broadcast service is vital and its full development has been established by the Congress as the goal of television policy. (2) If permitted to develop fully, UHF television will bring this goal within reach in the relatively near future. (3) Current CATV trends endanger the viability of existing stations, both UHF and VHF, and are a particularly grave threat to the development of new stations. (4) The recent actions of the FCC are an important step in the direction of meeting the threat of unregulated CATV. However, they fall short in significant respects and the FCC should be encouraged to strengthen its new rules. (5) Although the FCC's exercise of authority to regulate CATV is legally sound, appropriate legislation reaffirming the FCC's broad authority would be reasonable. I. THE STRUCTURE OF FREE, LOCAL, AND AREA TELEVISION SERVICE AND THE POLICIES OF THE CONGRESS Importance of local and area television.—Close bonds exist between television stations and the communities and areas they serve. Television stations oriented toward local needs provide unique benefits to the public. They present religious programing oriented to the particular needs of the community and its various religious faiths. They provide outlets of expression for local and area cultural endeavor and present an impressive variety and quality of local and area news, educational, and informational programing. They provide forums for discussion of community problems and outlets for public officials. The local television broadcast station provides invaluable assistance to charitable, educational, and social service organizations. Finally, not to be minimized, is the vital role which the local television station plays as an advertising medium, making an essential contribution to local and area business and the local and area economy. Television service is particularly important on farms and in other rural areas. Local and area television broadcast stations, with their wide area coverage, are not only invaluable for entertainment, educational, cultural, and vital news program services which they render to rural America and, of course, specialized crop, market, weather, agricultural instruction, and similar programs-they are unique in their ability to bring these services to thinly populated areas and without charge to the public which depends on these services. Congressional policy and the FCC mandate.-In enacting the Communications Act of 1934 the Congress made clear the importance of local and area broadcast stations providing service to all persons in cities, towns, and rural areas alike. It directed the Commission to so license broadcast stations and establish the powers at which they operate "as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable dis** ** service * tribution of * * among the several States and communities" (sec. 307 (b)). In furtherance of this directive the Commission was authorized "to establish areas or zones to be served by any station" (sec. 303 (h)). Responsive to this mandate, the Commission in 1952 established a table of assignments and engineering limitations allocating specific channels to specific communities to serve particular areas. The allocations have since been updated. But the allocations and the limitations on the area a television signal may reach are based on the premise that, although local service and multiple services are both important, it is more important that the opportunity for the development |