vhen its mother station is off the air. They adopted a complicated application orm as though each translator were a broadcasting station, in place of simple Application forms such as they use for boat transmitters of very much higher Dower. When adopting license fees they slapped our little nonprofit clubs with a 30 fee even though they, the FCC, had forced us into the translator field by not ncouraging the building of translators by broadcast station licensees. This fee aas now been reduced to $10. Just ahead of the hearings which started in 1958 the Commission had authorized common carrier microwave circuits for CATV. We knew by what started to happen then, that rural America was in for real trouble to get TV reception. In our part of the country, people who had had FCC issued construction permits for TV stations turned them back and went into the pay cable (CATV) business. People who had planned to build TV stations gave up the idea entirely and the stations were never built. Some stations went off the air because of microwave fed pay cable (CATV) duplicating all the programing they could carry. There is no use in us burdening the record, this is all shown in the transcript of those 1958, 1959, 1960 Senate hearings. What was said then is applicable today. It is our belief that only one FCC Commissioner, who is on the Commission today and who has participated in the present FCC rulemaking proposal and proposed law change, has ever read the transcript of those Senate hearings. That Commissioner was special attorney for the Senate committee at the time of those hearings and his dissent in the present matter is most important to the people of rural America. It bears directly upon your duties to see that all of the people of the United States of America have free over-the-air television. So important do we consider this dissent by Commissioner Cox, we reproduce it here for your careful consideration. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KENNETH A. Cox I concur fully in those portions of the Commission's action in which it (1) asserts jurisdiction over all CATV operations, (2) requires carriage of local stations on CATV systems, (3) provides for expedited ad hoc procedures for the consideration of special relief requested either by broadcasters or CATV operators, (4) requires disclosure of information as to ownership of CATV systems and certain other matters, and (5) calls on Congress to give prompt consideration to the problem of integrating CATV operations into our overall television 1 system, with particular attention to the questions of program origination by 3 CATV systems, possible extension of the principle of rebroadcast consent, and overlapping jurisdiction with the States. As to the balance of the action taken, I agree with what is done but believe it falls far short of protecting the public interest in an expanding television service. I agree that local stations should not have their programs duplicated, but believe that the protection afforded them is totally inadequate. As to network programs, they should be accorded exclusivity-that is, should not be duplicated-as to all programs which they propose to present in a comparable time period within 15 days.' This Commission found in the first report that, for congent reasons, delayed nonduplication served the public interest. See paragraphs 101-127, 38 FCC at 721-731. But the majority now cuts back on such delayed nonduplication to a single day. This 1-day protection is patently inadequate as to network programing (see first report, paragraph 125, 38 FCC at 730, where it is pointed out that only 10.2 percent of local stations' delayed broadcasts are delayed less than 1 day, with roughly 79 percent being delayed between 1 and 15 days). As to nonnetwork programs, the majority previously pointed out that such material was not distributed on a simultaneous nationwide basis and that, therefore, a 15-day protection was "clearly a minimal meassure of protection against the duplication of syndicated or feature film programs, considering the extended periods-up to and exceeding 5 years-for which stations now bargain and obtain exclusivity in relation to such programs." As to feature film, syndicated series, and other filmed or taped programing for which they have acquired local exhibition rights, they should be assured the right of first run-which is only one of the rights normally bargained for, but I agree that as to network color programs the local station should not be protected unless it will present them in color. certainly the most important one. I realize that this is more protection thi was proposed in this proceeding, but since I feel this would be necessary ** assure the station of the most important of the program rights it has acquire! as against prior exhibition by an entity which has acquired no rights at al I certainly cannot agree with the majority's refusal to recognize any rights as a such programing. Some nonsimultaneous nonduplication is necessary to affor local stations sufficient flexibility to provide the best possible service to those viewers who do not subscribe to the cable service. Similarly, I agree that some measures are needed to curb the indiscrimin: te extension of television signals by CATV systems. Section 303 (h) of the Communications Act gives us clear authority to establish zones or areas of service for broadcast stations. In television, I think we have undertaken to do this by establishing a carefully designed channel allocation and by fixing maxinm limits on heights and powers. While there are many situations in which defciencies of service can and should be corrected by supplemental means such as CATV, satellites and translators, I do not believe that any of these auxiliary services should be permitted to disrupt the basic television system that Congress. the Commission, and the broadcasters have worked so hard to establish. The majority contents itself with saying that it will carefully examine proposals to provide CATV service in the top 100 television markets. I woul greatly prefer an approach which would bar new systems-for a specified period -from extending a station's signal beyond its grade B contour, except upor authorization by the Commission in certain carefully defined situations. I be lieve this is necessary to stem the current proliferation of CATV systems in areaalready receiving substantial television service. Without such action. I am afraid that CATV-a supplemental and derivative service-will stunt the future growth of our free television system, and perhaps even impair the viability of some of the service which the public is now receiving. It is all very well to study the problems posed by CATV's threatened invasion of the major markets. It is true that the most immediate hopes for expanded UHF service are centered there, and that the risk of CATV operators building a pay television system on the basis of signals appropriated from the broadcasters who now provide our free service is greatest there. But if we turn our backs on the smaller markets by assuring cable operators that they can pump in multiple competing signals from New York and Los Angeles unless a local broadcaster can prove that he will be driven out of business, I think we are on the way to substituting a shrinking for an expanding system, with an artifical ceiling on network and local service alike-all in the name of a multiplicity, if no real diversity, of service for a part of the public. I am afraid we may end up with a shrunken, substantially wired pay service for the majority of the public, and a really vestigial system for those who cannot afford, or cannot be provided, this service. I am not comforted by the majority's confidence that it would reverse such a trend if it really became a clear threat. The Commission does not have a good record for taking such drastic measures—in fact, I think much of my colleagues' reluctance to take more meaningful action now stems from fear of disrupting the existing service of a rather small number of CATV subscribers who have been galvanized into pressuring Congress and the Commission by a campaign of outright misrepresentation by the CATV industry. If this bothers them, what likelihood is there that they will ever roll back any part of the greatly expanded CATV operations which I think their actions will bring into being? New York City signals have already been carried to points near the Ohio border, and service from Los Angeles is proposed for Oklahoma and Texas. Once such service is instituted, I am afraid it is impossible to roll it back. I think the majority itself recognizes this problem, as is indicated by the fact that in the release announcing their action they twice very carefully point out that service now being rendered to CATV subscribers will be unaffected by what they are doing. I do not mean to suggest that I know or can prove that the consequences I fear will actually result-though I think my concerns are shared by many leaders of the broadcast industry, by certain organizations which represent elements of the public who stand to be disadvantaged by increased reliance on wired television, and by other interested and informed parties. But on the other hand, my colleagues cannot prove that my fears are groundless. My approach would not impair the viability of existing cable systems and would not bar all further extension of CATV service. But it would confine such service to its proper supplemental role in areas which receive substandard over-the-air television for a limited period-say 5 years. That would give Congress and the Commission time to study the whole problem further, would permit continued UHF development, and would, hopefully, permit resolution of the copyright questions which are basic to the future of CATV. By not taking the admittedly more rigorous course which I favor, the majority has, I believe, invited developments which may make further study futile, may stifle UHF development which otherwise would have occurred, and may make it politically difficult, or even impossible, to adhere to normal copyright principles. I do not think that the benefits it is claimed CATV will bring are worth the hazards to our television system created by the limited action here taken by the majority. If there is one thing that even critics of the commission concede it is that this agency was created for the purpose of allocating communications facilities. Both sections 307(b) and 303 (h) of the Communications Act make this clear. I think the majority is simply refusing to discharge this responsibility. Now is the time to take hold of the problems posed by the explosive development of the CATV industry and to fit cable operations into an appropriate place in the overall televsion structure. I think we are at a real turning point as far as the development of American television is concerned and I think the majority has taken the wrong direction. The design of the FCC "Plan for Nationwide TV Service" to the people of the United States can be found in its "Sixth Report and Order" issued in 1952. The failure of the plan to function can be laid directly on the FCC and, as we have said, is found in Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee hearings during the years 1958, 1959, 1960. A great deal of information concerning the operations of television stations and repeating devices such as TV translators and TV cables and microwave for cable systems can be found in the "Economic Analysis of Community Antenna Television Systems and the Television Broadcasting Industry," by Dr. Martin H. Seiden, for the FCC, issued February 12, 1965. To read these publications will bring you up to date as of 1 year ago. Since that time the FCC has instituted two very important rulemaking proceedings and issued orders pertaining thereto. On July 7, 1965, the Commission in docket No. 15858 revised its rules to permit the installation of 100-watt TV translators on any unoccupied FCC "assigned channel" in either the UHF or VHF band. It also (at long last) permitted TV stations to participate in the owning of such TV translators within and in some cases beyond their grade B coverage areas. On July 27, 1965, the Commission in docket No. 15415 OK'd the participation in, or complete ownership of CATV cable systems by TV broadcast station operators and, of course, the ownership of TV broadcast stations by CATV cable companies. The Commission, in adopting rules for the use of microwave by CATV has "grandfathered" in any and all arrangements between cable companies and broadcasters without looking to see if those "arrangements" or 'deals" are in the public interest. You should carefully look into this. For us, in the United States, to build and maintain a free over-the-air system of TV broadcasting, it is our belief: 1. There should be no joint ownership of TV broadcast stations and CATV systems. The two are not compatable. One is for "free" distribution of a single TV signal to all people, the other is for the "paid" distribution of multiple TV signals to a section of the public that can afford those signals and are living in a location where the entreprenuer can make money delivering those signals to the home. The dollar income of the "paid" system, when under common ownership, can confuse and dilute the public service aspects of the "free" system. In Montana we can receive NBC programs on CATV home connections direct from New York and Los Angeles without the signal ever going through a TV station transmitter anywhere. This is wrong. This is a system of pay cable television, studio to home, for a few subscribing homes, located where it is profitable to deliver such service to them, for a fee. If is practice is to be continued and encouraged, it can destroy the incentive for the building of overthe-air TV broadcast stations which serve all the public. The network probably 62-610-66---53 likes this sort of distribution. Give it growth and the network will ultimately get TV home "set count" for its advertisers without having to pay a broadcasting fee to any TV station. Then, the drying up of TV stations! 2. There should be no duplication of the programs of any TV station, TV satellite, or TV translator within the trade area it serves. To develop the building and maintaining of this over-the-air system, each local station, satellite and translator should be carried by the local cable entrepreneur without duplication. 3. There should be no leapfrogging of programs over or around any TV station, satellite, or translator. The signal from the nearest such transmitting apparatus should be used on each cable system. 4. Rules of nonduplication and leapfrogging of programs must be for all hours of the broadcast day and not just for prime time. To better illustrate the incompatability of "joint ownership of TV stations and CATV cable systems" I refer to Helena, Mont.: The cable system and the TV station has been under joint ownership for some time although a change in ownership has recently been made through one owner retiring and Salt Lake City TV station ownership coming into the picture through the microwave company bringing signals to the cable system. The ownership was such that it made no difference whether the dollars were coming in through cable connections and monthly rental billings or coming in from station advertising dollars. Data from the 1966 CATV Directory, published by Communications Publishing Corp.. 1839 NW. 16th. Oklahoma City, Okla., shows the Helena TV cable system with 3,450 connected homes out of a potential of 5,000 homes. Its hookup charge is shown as $9.90 with monthly rental of $4.95. Nine channels are indicated as being carried on this cable. A bit of arithmetic shows monthly income for this cable at $17.077.50 and if Dr. Seiden's figures for a better than 50-percent profit are correct it may be better to have cable connections then to worry about income on a TV station. Important to the public is what happened when a Great Falls TV station KFBB applied to replace the little 1-watt TV translator in Helena that had been carrying its programs with a 100-watt TV translator, which the FCC authorized in its July 7 order. Application was made to the city of Helena for a location on a mountaintop. owned by the city, for the 100-watt translator location. The management of the local Helena TV station protested this application saying such a translator would "wreck the local TV station." When the KFBB application for the 100-watt translator was filed with the FCC the local Helena TV station immediately filed another application for a 100-watt TV translator on the same channel, to be located only about 13 miles distant. This move, if granted, would effectively block a second over-the-air signal for Helena. When the FCC turned down the local station and made the grant to KFBB of Great Falls the local Helena station then went back to the city fathers and protested again the rental of the ground for translator use. All of the time this has been going on--the local NBC programing of the local Helena TV station has been duplicated on the Helena cable system by KRTV of Great Falls and KHQ-TV of Spokane, Wash. The ABC programing of the local TV station has been duplicated on the cable system by KRTV of Great Falls (ABC is secondary network on this station): KREM-TV of Spokane, Wash.; and KCPX-TV of Salt Lake City, Utah. With the new 100-watt TV translator installed by KFBB-TV of Great Falls going on the air, this will give primary CBS network (not carried by local Helena station) and secondary ABC over-the-air service. KSL-TV of Salt Lake City is primary CBS and is carried on the Helena cable. It seems to us that for the encouragement of the building and maintaining of free over-the-air TV signals, the FCC must look into the nonduplicating of TV translator signals by TV cables. The people putting in the 100-watt translator in Helena will never have their programs seen on 3,450 TV homes in Helena unless that TV translator is placed on the cable. The FCC has determined this area should be a part of the KFBB coverage “zone" by making this grant, so naturally the programing of this translator should be nonduplicated. We show here a published TV schedule of service in Helena so you can see how locally broadcast signals are duplicated two and three times by microwavefed signals. This dilutes the value and dulls the desire of those engaged in Cover-the-air broadcasting. No network would stand for its New York TV staion's programs to be duplicated in New York by those same programs coming back on cable from its Los Angeles station 3 hours later. THURSDAY EVENING 1:00 (3) Maglia Gorllia (5) Cranite M (9) Cap'n Cr (11) Cranke News 8:15 (4) Peter PotsES 3:30 (2) Huntley-Brinkley (3) Hunter-Brinkley Report 8:45 (4) The Big News (5) Zane Grey Theatre 4:10) Weather TOMORROW MORNING (4) Inland Empire Former (5) Andy of Maybury Consequences (C) 9:30 (2) Jeopardy (3) Jeopardy (C) (4) The Price is Right (5) Dick Van Dyke (4) What's This Song (C) 19:00 (2) Call My Bru (3) Call My Blu (4) Donne Reed Show (5) Love of Life (6) Concentration (9) High Rand 10:23 (5) CBS News 10:20 (2) 11 Bet (3) Il Bat (C) (4) Father Knows Best (5) Search for Tomerres (6) Jeopardy (C) (9) Harrigan and Son (11) dearch for Tomorrow 10:48 (5) The Guiding Lind (3) NBC Now 6) Star News (S) Channel 5 Ag (4) Suspense Theatre (C) (11) Wendy and Me (3) Best of Hollywood 11:20 (4) Tonight Show (C) (9) Late Movie (11) Weather 12:00 (5) News Final 1:00 (2) You Don't Say (3) You Den? Say (C) 2:25 (7) NBC News (5) I Love Lucy (9) A Time For Us (11) A Time for Us 2:55 (9) How-Women's Touch (11) ABC News 3:09 (3) Young Marrieds (5) The McCoy's (9) General Hospital (11: Price is Right 3:20 (3) Donna Reed (4) Cas Scotty and Jiminy 4 3:M (6) Jong Shopp 4:30 (3) Poceve Cartoons It seems to us that for the Helena TV station to be a healthy and robust broadcast entity so that it can better serve its people, that its programing should likewise be nonduplicated by the cable system, no matter what the "connection" or the "deal" may be between it and the cable system. For such a situation to exist, without protest, to the FCC, it appears to us, there must be some hidden agreements that are certainly not in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Helena and the Helena Valley have approximately 9,000 homes. It is in the interest of all of these people that the FCC should make any broadcasting system it devises work. The signals of KSL-TV of Salt Lake City are being brought into Helena by microwave, leapfrogging KID-TV of Idaho Falls, Idaho, and KXLF-TV of Butte, Mont., both CBS primary network stations. This practice also dulls the incentive to build and maintain small market TV stations. If this practice is to persist then the whole system of "local station" television must be revised, |