(2) Television transmission is supposed to be in the public interest, eve venience, and necessity. No television station can claim true local servic for all the communities in its coverage area. This is especially true in the fringe area where CATV has been so predominant. I contend that origintion by CATV systems is very definitely in the public interest simply due te the fact that they are local in nature and are of content that is of interest to the public being served by the CATV system. I might add that the morality and quality level of the CATV originated programs, I have seen, rate fær above some of the regularly scheduled programs of the networks and the local TV stations. As a conclusion it is my opinion that the FCC has overstepped its jurisdictiona boundaries by issuing orders regulating CATV. The mere fact Congress is still studying the matter and bills are now being introduced for committee and floor discussion is very definite proof of this point. I would certainly appreciate anything you might be able to do to correct this situation and any action that could be taken to prevent reoccurrence either by the FCC or by other staff bodies of the Government. I remain, Very truly yours, Representative HARLEY STAGGERS, Chairman, House Commerce Committee, CLARENCE E. Ross, Manager. MONTGOMERY, W. VA., March 22, 1966. DEAR SIR: I am the president of the Montgomery Television Association, Inc. a nonprofit cooperative corporation which was formed in 1952 for the purpose of providing our members with better television reception than they would otherwise be able to receive individually. We provide service from the three major networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS to a total of 225 members. We do not have any fixed fees, and our operation is financed by equal assessments against all members. At the present time our assessment rate is $32 per year per member. It is my understanding that your committee has two bills up for consideration dealing with the regulation of CATV systems by the FCC, which agency recently ruled that they had the authority to regulate all such systems, whether microwave or not. While I do not have the text of the two bills, it is my understanding that H.R. 13286 embodies the proposals given by the FCC in their second report and order (FCC 66–220), while the other bill, H.R. 12914, would prohibit the FCC from exercising jurisdiction over nonmicrowave CATV systems. On behalf of myself as an individual and also on behalf of the members of the association, I would like to present for your information and consideration the following comments on the problems involved as they might apply to our system and to our area. In the first place, in areas like ours, if off-the-air signals of reasonable quality were available to all persons, there would be no need or demand for CATV systems. Even if one were installed, it would be difficult for it to survive for many would not subscribe to the service, even thought they might be able to do so. The FCC seems to feel that the growth of CATV systems will tend to prevent the establishment of so-called community stations on UHF, and thus stunt the growth of a nationwide system of UHF television stations. The Commission chooses to ignore the hard fact that in the majority of the smaller communities there simply would not be enough advertising revenue to support any kind of television station, either UHF or VHF. I am the engineer at a local AM broadcasting station, and if someone would present us with a fully equipped television station free, it would be impossible for us to take in enough money to keep it operating, let alone show a profit. They are always talking about the growth of UHF in the smaller markets, yet nobody has the answer to the question of how such a venture can be financed. Antenna reception in our area is spotty, with the average signal level less than 50 microvolts. This would be adequate for fair reception were it not for the ghosting problem which is fairly common, and the various forms of electrical interference which are always present to some degree in any build-up area. CATV antennas are, as a rule, located in areas where such disturbances are ot normally present, and if the distribution cable is properly installed, it will ick up little or no interference, even in a noisy location. In their Report and Order, the Commission shows a degree of discrimination 1 that they exempt systems with less than 50 subscribers and apartment house ystems with no limit on the number of outlets from the requirements of their ules. Thus in the larger cities it is quite possible that there will be some apartent house systems serving more people than we do, yet we will be required o do things that the apartment house system is not required to do. It would eem to me that if regulation is required that it should apply equally to all. I feel rather strongly that it is not right to prohibit a CATV system from ffering its customers reception from certain stations that might be available o the individual from his own antenna, yet in some cases that will be what will appen if the proposed rules are enforced as written. In our area there is a ossibility that this will happen due to the combination of the "local station" ule and the nonduplication rule. We have two CBS signals available here, ne from Oak Hill and the other from Charleston. At present we carry the Charleston signal because most of our members prefer it and our community is nore closely allied with Charleston than with Oak Hill. Yet it may be that we vill have to deny our members reception of the Charleston signal if we are equired to carry the Oak Hill signal. In effect any CATV system is merely an extended lead to a common antenna urray, and in receiving and distributing the signal to its customers for a fee, it vould seem that the system is merely acting as agent for the individual set Owner, and as such an agent, he would be more or less guided by the set owner's lesires in the way of reception. If there are to be no restrictions placed on the ndividual set owner, then why should restrictions be placed on his agent? Another great fear of industry and the Commission seems to be that they think the CATV industry will gradually grow into some sort of a "pay TV" affair. I nust admit that there is such a possibility, especially if the quality of the "free" TV programs continues to decline. So, if the CATV system can offer an attraccive program schedule day in and day out and the public is willing to support it, what could be wrong with it? However, in all frankness, I must admit that if I were called upon to decide the question as of now, I would vote to bar a CATV system from originating programs on their own other than the usual time and weather channel so widely used on the larger systems. In the majority of cases I feel that the public interest would be best served by placing as few restrictions as possible on CATV systems not using micvrowave, for in most cases off-the-air pickup would be limited to stations not more than 125 miles away at the most. Any signals from stations at a greater distance would likely be too unreliable to be offered as a regular service. In the case of microwave systems, it might be in the public interest to limit the distance over which signals might be imported, with exceptions being made in cases where only one service or none at all was available off-the-air. To sum up, I feel that nonmicrowave CATV systems should be allowed to carry any signals that they are able to pick up off the air without restriction and without being subject to the nonduplication rule. After all, a network program will be the same no matter what the station, and let the rules of competition apply to the local shows-if they are good, people will watch them, even if they originate in Dogpatch. I trust you will give my comments on this subject your closest attention. I am enclosing an extra copy for your convenience. Sincerely yours, MONTGOMERY TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INC., President. BLUEFIELD TELEVISION CABLE, Bluefield, W. Va., February 7, 1966. Hon. JAMES KEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN KEE: So far, all proposed rules to regulate our industry are for the sole benefit of the television broadcasters. If our industry is handcuffed by the present proposed rulings, the people we serve are the ones really being hurt. The two most prominent rulings I object to are the "15 days before and after* clause and the microwave limitation being presently studied. Here in Bluefield, our system is presently undergoing a modernization to en vert our present four-channel system to a high-band system. We had begun ar plans last summer. Included in our plans were to bring the three independent from New York City to Bluefield for our subscribers. By obtaining the thre independents from New York City, we would be able to offer our subscribers their choice of the three major networks plus the variety offered by the nonduplicating independents. Without the additional choice of the 3 independents, we could pe up to 12 channels on our new system and still only have the 3 basic programs offered by the networks. I sincerely cannot understand why, as long as we are willing to pay for the microwave service, we cannot increase our subscribers' viewing potential from three programs to six at any given time of the broadcasting hours. In simple basic terms the FCC will be telling the people of West Virginia that they cannot watch programs from New York City, even though they are coILpletely different from the regular network programs and would certainly add to their television viewing pleasure. In our case, the microwave limitations are the most objectionable rules proposed to regulate our industry. I surely hope that you will agree with me, especially on the microwave rulings, and with your aid something can be done to preserve the freedom of television viewing here in West Virginia. Thank you. Respectfully yours, W. F. HEINBACH, Manager. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Rep resentatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR HARLEY: At the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in December 1965, the voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus adopted the following policy on regulation of community antenna television systems: "We urge that the Federal Communications Commission promptly adopt regulations governing community antenna systems to insure that such systems do not impair free radio and television broadcast services to rural areas. New legisla tion in this area should not preclude the Commission from taking those actions authorized under existing legislation." We commend the Federal Communications Commission for its recent adoption of regulations to regulate CATV in the public interest. This is a step forward in helping to keep free local and area broadcasting service available to our rural people. The American Farm Bureau Federation expresses its support for H.R. 13286, which authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules and regulations with respect to CATV systems. We believe practices of CATV which tend to undermine free local and area broadcasting services should be subject to reasonable regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. This bill will provide that authority. We stress, however, that any legislation should be in conformity with the longstanding policy of preserving and developing free television service through local stations. We are opposed to H.R. 12914 which would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from regulating CATV. This legislative proposal is contrary to AFBF policy and offers no comfort to rural Americans who cannot, or do not, choose to pay for television service. Our concern is for the large number of farmers and ranchers who cannot be served economically by CATV. These citizens depend heavily on local and area broadcasting for news, education, and entertainment. Any impairment of these free services caused by the unregulated growth of CATV would be contrary to the best interest of rural people. Local broadcasting remains the lifeline of most rural communities. Again, we would request that your committee favorably report H.R. 13286 and JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director. MOGINTY'S ATLANTIC COAST TV CABLE CORP., TIONAL COMMUNITY TV ASSOCIATION, INC. insport Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Atlantic City, long known as one of the Nation's leading convenn cities, the home of the Miss America Contest, the summer vacation land, is, truth, also among the top 10 economically depressed cities in the United States. As you well realize, a stable economy cannot be developed in our city based on nonths of summer tourist trade, leaving a large share of the city's labor force ctive for 8 to 9 months out of the year. National conventions are the lifeline of our economy and our program has been ired to generate greater interest in our city as a year round convention center. Atlantic Coast TV Cable Corp. is playing a vital role in attracting more convenns to Atlantic City by making available its facilities for closed circuit television ich originate at Convention Hall and transmit convention programing to delees throughout some 12,000 TV sets in motels and hotels in Atlantic City. Attic Coast has been lauded for its efforts by virtually all the leading city hers, our Congressmen, the convention bureau, and 93 percent of the leading els and motels for its efforts in attracting new interest in this city as an portant convention city by the availability of its closed-circuit television ilities. Atlantic Coast is currently performing a serivce that could not be performed any other media. It does not and will not interfere with originating television tions locally or nationally. This 24-hour-per-day, closed-circuit programing not be accomplished by any other means than by our local CATV system. It must be clearly understood that the extent of our program origination is only hin the complex of the convention headquarters and delegates in various hotels I motels in Atlantic City. It is not a local consumer product, competing with time. Further, all program origination is effected by the convention group, h as the recent American Association of School Administrators who telecast al new educational information to some 12,000 delegates throughout the city. is important convention has come to Atlantic City for the past 3 years because he vital communication link that our system offers. As we interpret recent FCC rulings regarding CATV, it is necessary to secure mission to originate and telecast programing over our closed-circuit system. We are concerned about this ruling, as are many city administrators who look Defully to a more prosperous year of conventions to stir our depressed economy. erefore, we would like to know: (1) Does this rulemaking affect a closed-circuit system such as our convention service? (2) If so, may we have your permission to continue such programing? As you can appreciate, it is necessary to plan our convention programing far advance. Arrangements have been made to extend our service to the American vchiatric Association for May 9 through May 13. It is imperative that we ir from you in the very near future to accommodate this convention. Very truly yours, HUGH MCGINTY, President. RADIO JOE'S RADIO & TV SERVICE. DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: In view of the desperate campaign now being waged the pay cable television (CATV) industry to flood Congress with letters and egrams requesting you to order the FCC to postpone or even abandon regulan of CATV. I respectfully request you lend your full support to the FCC in forming its duty to protect the public interest by passing much needed ulations for CATV. ATV systems, most of them monopolies, have grown so rapidly, taking proims off the air without anyone's permission, and in many cases charging such exorbitant rates, that they are threatening the full development of American free television, as envisioned by the Federal Communications Commission's table of frequency allocations. Particularly menaced are plans for new UHF stations which hundreds of communities expected to see built after Congress gave UHF a boost by passing the all-channel receiver law. Free broadcast television, if encouraged according to FCC rules and with the aid of the all-channel legislation, could vastly multiply the number of local stations to cater to local needs: provide a forum for discussion of local issues; encourage local talent; and serve local consumers and local business. But this possibility of local TV stations is gravely threatened by unregulated CATV which seeks only to skim off the cream. I am sure you must be deeply concerned, as I am, by the fact that CATV STE tems are under no obligation to present both sides in a political campaign or in the discussion of controversial issues, although the FCC requires this in broadcasting. CATV can present only one side if it so chooses. Moreover, most of the channels reserved for noncommercial educational stations are in the UHF band, and the plans for new stations on these channels, are seriously threatened by CATV. I am sure you are familiar with the fact that the Interstate Commerce Conmittee of the House held extensive hearings on this subject and that the FCC is acting or is expected to act-only after years of study. I respectfully urge you to support the FCC in its statutory duty to protect the public interest and exert proper control over CATV, so that American may have the fullest possible development of its system of free television. (While this a former letter I have read it carefully and am in funll agreement with its sentiment). Sincerely, Representative HARLEY O. STAGGERS, JOE L. SMITH. CHILLICOTHE TELCOM, INC., Chillicothe, Ohio, March 17, 1966. Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN STAGGERS: We are a community antenna television system (CATV) which is extensively involved in program origination: and since your Commerce Committee is considering an investigation of CATV, we want to apprise you of our operations. We feel your committee will be interested in knowing about our particular type of CATV program origination and the potential such originations hold in those small communities having no other television station. In the way of background information, Chillicothe Telcom, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of the local independent telephone company, the Chillicothe Telephone Co. We began operations in September 1964, and today have almost 2,400 subscribers. Chillicothe has a population of 26,000, with about 8,400 homes. and has one newspaper, two radio stations, but no television broadcast station. We offer nine (9) “off-air" television signals (none of our signals are via miero wave). Our subscribers pay the same monthly rental as do most CATV subscribers in the United States; i.e., $5. As an extra service, Telcom operates channel 2, a closed-circuit television station which concentrates almost exclusively on the local scene, programing about an average of 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. The programing is noncommercial in the sense that there are no commercials or sponsors. In the bill submitted to both Houses of Congress, the FCC is recommending that no CATV be permitted to originate programs, except upon an express finding that it would serve the public interest, in which case exceptions could be made. We are quite concerned about this proposal since any blanket prohibition would rule out our channel 2. Furthermore, the FCC in explaining its ruling has said that exceptions would necessarily have to be limited, and has cited as examples meriting such exceptions only "time and weathercasting." We realize that the problems and potential of CATV originations are complex. and vary greatly from system to system and from city to city, but we feel qualified to speak for CATV's in small communities. In these communities, we think the FCC and Congress should encourage, not prohibit, CATV's to provide the local public affairs type of program origination we attempt to offer. Chilli |