Mr. CONROY. It is completely open now, sir.

Mr. Moss. I thought there was a franchise involved in most of these unicipalities.

Mr. CONROY. The franchise is a misnomer. It is merly a permit or nabling ordinance which allows us to do it. Franchise denotes exlusivity, and we don't think of it in terms of a franchise, although it is alled that. We are not looking for exclusivity. In fact, it is illegal, am told.

Mr. Moss. Is that why you are discouraged from seeking it, because is illegal?

Mr. CONROY. Seeking what?

Mr. Moss. Exclusivity.

Mr. CONROY. We are not seeking exclusivity.

Mr. Moss. You don't want it?

Mr. CONROY. We are not seeking it. We don't want it.

Mr. Moss. You don't want it?

Mr. CONROY. That is correct. We do not want it.

Mr. Moss. You know, I have developed a certain cynicism in my 14 ars here. You will pardon me for just saying I honestly don't believe at that represents your true conviction.

Mr. CONROY. In many towns, Mr. Moss, there are competing sysms. I am not saying we invite competition.

Mr. Moss. The fact that there are competing systems does not indite that you do not want exclusivity in the operation of your franise. I think that the pattern here, unless there is some regulation, ill be one of merge, merge, and merge until we have a handful of ATV's across this Nation being serviced by a handful of broad

sters.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. You are here, sir, to advocate the stripping of reguory powers from the State and local regulatory agencies over the ice of service by CATV's?

Mr. CONROY. No, sir; not the municipalities.

Mr. DINGELL. How about the State public service commission or the ate public utility commissions?

Mr. CONROY. The body of law which has been developed so far has t vested jurisdiction over CATV in any State commission except nnecticut, where there are no systems using utility poles on streets d highways.

Mr. DINGELL. Let us not engage in debating whether or not somely is a public utility. A public utility becomes a public utility beise it is so established by State statutes; is that a fact?

Mr. CONROY. I would expect that is the case.

Mr. DINGELL. Once that is done, then the degree, type, and manner regulation is also established by statute in the State?

Mr. CONROY. That is the way it works.

Ir. DINGELL. Whether or not the law is developed so far on public lities is relatively unimportant; am I correct? Because what, in ct, we are discussing now is whether or not you choose to strip the te and the local regulatory bodies from the power to assess the level harges which shall be assessed against you, the CATV system?

Mr. CONROY. The States do not have the power now, sir. The lor l municipalities do.

Mr. DINGELL. You advocate that the Federal Government deny them authority to regulate signals by wire; am I correct?

Mr. CONROY. We are not of the nature of a public utility.

Mr. DINGELL. I am asking you whether or not you are here this morning and I expect to quote you in executive session on this legis lation as to whether or not you want these States and local agencies stripped of the power to regulate charges levied by CATV systems Are you telling us you want an exemption?

Mr. CONROY. You are asking me two questions. I would like to answer both of them, if you will let me.

Mr. DINGELL. All right.

Mr. CONROY. The local municipalities now have and do exercise that right.

Mr. DINGELL. You are telling me that local communities are now regulating the charges assessed by CATV's operating within their borders?

Mr. CONROY. They exercise rate supervision over our operation. Mr. DINGELL. They do?

Mr. CONROY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Do all of them do this?

Mr. CONROY. Virtually all that I have ever heard of.

Mr. DINGELL. Are regulating as to charges?

Mr. CONROY. As to charges, local municipalities; yes, sir. In fact. in an operation in which I am directly involved there is a separate ordinance relating to my rates.

Mr. DINGELL. You are involved in two communities, one in Texas? Mr. CONROY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Are they doing it in Illinois?

Mr. CONROY. In Illinois, they exercise the same supervision over us. Mr. DINGELL. You are advocating that we strip the State commission of authority to regulate, but you are advocating that we allow this to the local communities?

Mr. CONROY. The local communities now have it.

Mr. DINGELL. You are advocating that the authority to regulate by statute be vested in the municipalities; am I correct?

Mr. CONROY. We feel that if we are going to be regulated by the FCC, that the FCC should occupy this field.

Mr. DINGELL. You are here expressly opposing economic regulation? Mr. CONROY. By the States.

Mr. DINGELL. By the Federal Government, also?

Mr. CONROY. Well, the FCC has expressed the view it does not want such a type of jurisdiction.

Mr. DINGELL. What you are saying is that you are willing to accede to the FCC's position with regard to economic regulation in exchange for legislation stripping the States of authority to regulate with regard to the economic rates?

Mr. CONROY. No, sir; we are not asking that at all. You are putting words in my mouth.

Mr. CONROY. I am not. I am asking you, Is that your position? Mr. CONROY. No, sir: it is not.

Mr. DINGELL. I am trying to find your position. I have some difficulty. I would like to know, Do you want the States to be stripped of he power to regulate rates and charges over CATV service within the >orders of the States?

Mr. CONROY. You cannot strip them of something they do not have, sir. I don't believe they have it now.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you advocating that we deny them the right to enact a statute to accomplish that purpose?

Mr. CONROY. They do not have the right now. We want the law to spell out the fact that they do not have the right.

Mr. DINGELL. You want the Federal Government, then, to spell out the fact the States do not have the power to enact local regulatory statutes over CATV rates and charges. Is that what you are saying? Mr. CONROY. Not like a utility.

Mr. DINGELL. We are getting very far afield here. I am asking you what I think is a very simple question. I want to know whether you advocate the thesis that this Congress should deny Federal Communications Commission the power to fix rates and charges, and whether or not this Congress should deny the State legislative bodies and State regulatory bodies the power to fix charges and rates to be established by CATV. Now this, I think, is a simple enough question that you can give me a yes or no answer.

Now, do you advocate this Congress stripping State legislatures and State regulatory bodies of the authority to fix charges by CATV for CATV service and their subcsribers within the borders of the State? That is a simple question.

Mr. CONROY. I will answer it by saying, Mr. Dingell, that we are advocating that the FCC preempt the field and leave the law the way it is now with respect to the regulation by local authorities. By "local," I do not mean State. I mean the municipalities in which we operate.

Mr. DINGELL. You have no objection, then, to this committee leaving the law so that the States may enact regulatory legislation over CATV rates if they so choose. Is that correct?

Mr. CONROY. If the law is left the way it is now, most of them cannot do it now. Most of them it has been ruled from the court that they do not have the right.

Mr. DINGELL. You want a pattern of circumstances to continue to exist whereby the States cannot regulate CATV, where the FCC will not do so, and where the communities are going to do this. Is that correct?

Mr. CONROY. This is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. In other words, you want community regulation. Now you want the community regulation, then, of CATV which will serve in large areas of the State over many, many separate and distinct municipalities. Am I correct?

Mr. CONROY. Community by community.

Mr. DINGELL. On a community-by-community basis. I am trying to get your position. Is it fair to say there are large numbers of communities which do not regulate rates for CATV service?

Mr. CONROY. There may be some instances, but I think the general pattern, Mr. Dingell, is that they do exercise rate supervision.

Mr. DINGELL. But there are a number of instances where this is true?

Mr. CONROY. Frankly, I could not name them. I could name more of the others which do supervise rate increases.

The CHAIRMAN. The 5 minutes have expired.

Do you have any questions you would like to ask?

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask him one question. First, I want to say again what I said previously, that it seems to me that the CATV operators and the broadcasters here ought to be getting together better than they are. I have the feeling they are fairly close together. I am interested in your statement they were almost together on a compromise, and I suggest they are giving Congress and the American people an awful lot of agony and little ecstasy in the course of all these hearings. If you don't do it, we are going to write something where we will spell out regulations.

Mr. CONROY. We tried as hard as we could.

Mr. PICKLE. I say again you had better be getting together. I believe I have a clear idea of what you are saying here; that the FCC should be the sole agency to regulate the CATV operation, but that would not deprive the local communities of the same licensing or permit. As I recall the rule that the Commission issued, they just simply said you still have to get your permit but you could not go on the air until you received prior approval to commence broadcasting.

So you really have to go before both, and you would not be taking it away from the city necessarily, would you?

Mr. CONROY. That is correct.

Mr. PICKLE. The question I want to ask you is this. I don't know that I agree with you with respect to 325 (a). You want to have a complete license to pick up those signals anywhere you find them. A broadcaster now will run a signal and he still has to comply with copyrights and permission of owners and he obtains that and broadcasts it. I don't know why you CATV operators could not do the same thing. I don't know that you are actually stealing signals off the air, but you are getting them for free. I don't want to get involved in so many words here, but if we can regulate it so that by nonduplication, perhaps that would save everybody or come close to it. But I am concerned with the 325 (a) aspect of it. I don't know if there is any answer. I am simply making that as an observation. Why do you think you ought to have free license?

Mr. CONROY. Our function is to pick up off the air broadcast signals which, in the first instance, are intended for reception by menbers of the public. This is our function. This is what we do.

Mr. PICKLE. Do you think they intend for anyobdy to pick it up and use it commercially? Do you think that was the intent when they broadcast that signal to begin with?

Mr. CONROY. These signals were intended for the homeowner. I might comment in this regard that there are two cases now in New York State out of which will come some adjudication of this copyright matter and the property rights in signals. I don't know how they are going to come out, sir.

Mr. PICKLE. You said it was intended for home consumption for the individual public to receive and you do not think it was intended

for any commercial establishment to pick it up and rebroadcast it. Do you think that was the intent?

Mr. CONROY. NO. If you are talking about rebroadcast in the sense of putting it out over the air, this is not what we do.

Mr. PICKLE. I don't know how you want to spell it but that is what you, in effect, are doing: rebroadcasting, retransmitting, whatever you want to term it. I just say there is a place for both, and you had better get together or we will help you get together.

Mr. CONROY. We will do our best, Mr. Pickle.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

We hope that we will be able to sit at 2 o'clock. That depends on the House. If we cannot be here, we will notify everyone.

Mr. CONROY. Mr. Chairman, have you completed with me? The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will have Mr. Dudley this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The committee reconvened at 2:45 p.m., Hon. Harley O. Staggers, chairman, presiding.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness this afternoon will be Mr. William Lowell Putnam, president of the Springfield Television Broadcasting Corp., of Springfield, Mass.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LOWELL PUTNAM, PRESIDENT, SPRINGFIELD TELEVISION BROADCASTING CORP., SPRINGFIELD, MASS.; ACCOMPANIED BY MARTIN FIRESTONE, ATTORNEY

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Putnam, do you have a prepared statement? Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir; but in the last few days I have done some more thinking, so I am afraid my original prepared statement is not adequate to present the views that I think this committee should have. With your indulgence, I will burden you with a few more thoughts. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Do you mean to summarize your statement?

Mr. PUTNAM. No, sir. I think I better take it from the top, if that is permissible.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it the book you have there?

Mr. PUTNAM. No, sir. There are some notes and a lot of scratch paper in here.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you.

We would like for each of the witnesses to make this as brief as possible, unless they have something completely new. This has been gone over considerably. We don't mean to cut anyone off.

Mr. PUTNAM. I appreciate this, sir. I think you have yet to hear from a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool UHF operator.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine. We certainly want to hear from you.
Mr. PUTNAM. I seem to be the guy that is the concern of everybody.
I am accompanied by Mr. Martin E. Firestone.

My name is William Lowell Putnam. I live in Springfield, Mass., where I was born. I am the president of the Springfield Television