from the main post office of the community in which the community antenna television system is located, and (ii) in addition duplicates simultaneously a program broadcast by a television broadcast station whose transmitter is located within thirty miles of the main post office of the community in which the community antenna television system: is located, and (iii) whose signal the CATV is required to receive. "(b) To make general rules exempting from regulation, in whole or in part, community antenna television systems where it is determined that such regulation is unnecessary because of the size or nature of the systems so exempted."

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to congratulate you on reading this very voluminous record. The job was well done. This information will be quite helpful, Mr. Ford.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Ford, has there been any judicial determination that a CATV system is engaged in interstate commerce? Mr. FORD. Yes, sir, I think I cited the case in the statement. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Which was that?

Mr. FORD. Inter Mountain.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Was it a general decision that all CATV systems are engaged in interstate commerce?

Mr. FORD. I don't recall the specific facts of that case at the

moment.

I am advised there may not be a case in which it was precisely at issue. I thought the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had in one of its decisions made that statement. I thought I had cited it in this statement.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I believe your statement said the NCTA believed it was engaged in interstate commerce and I would think the best time to believe that would be after it had been determined by a court of proper jurisdiction.

Mr. FORD. That was the source of our belief.

I think we are crossing up on maybe whether the court has said this or whether the court has ruled in a specific case in which this specific case was in issue. I may be relying on dicta rather than a specific determination.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. That was my understanding, that it was dicta, and that it has not yet been determined. As a matter of fact, the FCC is not too anxious for the court to make the determination. I am not sure whether they are or not.

I would think, Mr. Ford, it is a matter that ought to be determined by the courts because if we are going to get into the area of making this interstate commerce simply because this signal is on the air and is in interstate commerce in the first instance, there is not going to be any intrastate commerce in this country.

I doubt seriously that there is a grocery merchant in the smallest town who is not handing out or distributing something that came to him in interstate commerce. This is the point that I think is quite interesting because, take for instance, the question about originating programs in these CATV operations. I do not think any one would argue unless the Federal communications Commission has said one way and meant another, which has not been unusual in some instances, that they do not have jurisdiction of an operation, of a wire operation which does not receive signals off of the air.

In other words, if all of the programs of a wired communication in a city were originated in the studios, which I understand can be

done I am not a technician in this regard but I presume they can be done but these are not and would not be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission because they are not interstate in nature.

Mr. FORD. I think that is correct.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. If the man had an area in which he was getting signals off the air and he only operated this CATV operation by off the air from 6 o'clock until 12 o'clock at night and all the rest of the day he used for originating his own programs, which, let us say, or let us assume it is intrastate commerce, he would be engaged in intrastate commerce a greater length of time than he would be in interstate commerce and I think some attention should be given to this.

I don't know for sure but I think these are questions that can arise. I understand the FCC intends to include this sort of operation.

Say, for instance, an industrial organization with employees in the area of 1,500 people are in an area where they do not get good signals and put up a community antenna and everybody ties on to a community antenna.

Now, under the Federal Communications' position today I do not see how you could escape the fact that they would have jurisdiction over that, whether a charge is made for those services or not. If it was furnished even free as a part of an inducement to get people to come to work in that area, if there were over 50 people there, this would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission and they would have to come here for their evidentiary hearings, and they would have to, in the first instance, get a certificate of construction to start off with, despite what the chairman said this morning, because he did say that, essentially, a certificate of public convenience and necessity would be needed although a license is not anticipated.

Let me ask you one further question: The one other thing that I want to say, Mr. Ford, that I think we ought to take into consideration and I think it was pointed up by the witness who was here before you, and that was Mr. Davis, in your statement you said a compromise had been reached more or less between the two sections of the industry.

I found out in my experience in Congress every time a compromise is reached between two people who are fighting over some profits somewhere, the public usually comes out on the losing end. I think these matters ought to be fought out on a straight legal basis. If the law needs to be changed, it ought to be changed, but I do not think we should submit to any board or bureau or anyone else the State or the Federal Government-the power of determining what people can or cannot receive each day if they are willing to pay for it or if they are willing to buy a set that can receive it.

Maybe I am wrong in my conclusion that in the first instance the Communications Act was born to make it possible for communications to be expended and more widespread, and there has never been an intention in anything done that has been accomplished by the Congress-there have been some efforts but there has never been an effective move to curtail or to restrict communications, whether it is in this field or in building libraries or anything else to make it possible for people to see and hear and understand and get better educated.

I think we are moving into a field where we are trying to restrict what people can find, so we had better be careful.

Mr. FORD. May I comment that the proposed solution that I presented here today, I do not believe either the Commission or the National Association of Broadcasters or anybody else knew what that solution would be. That is not a compromise. I presented it in my statement in an effort to present it as possibly something that they could come to. There has been no discussion with anyone outside of the association on this particular proposal.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I may be wrong, but as I recall you used the word compromise.

Mr. FORD. I Said in an effort. In other words, I am offering this and they will have their opportunity to comment on it and if they want to buy it maybe the Congress would say this is a good solution. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Do you think the public should be heard on this also, Mr. Ford?

Mr. FORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. You say in your conclusions you believe that the Federal Communications Commission should be given limited jurisdiction over CATV systems. I would say the testimony which has come forth here has been that the Federal Communications Commission has the power of the President, the Congress, and everybody else unless it is changed by law. I do not know where they get this idea.

You say:

We do not believe that the Government either through regulation or legislation should prohibit or limit the right of people to receive television signals either directly off-the-air through community or master antenna systems.

Do you not think, Mr. Ford, that people in Akron, Ohio, or Dallas, Tex., who elect their city councils ought to be the ones to make the determination whether they need further service? Do you think this is a matter that ought to be under Federal jurisdiction?

Mr. FORD. To the limited extent that we have proposed carrying the local station on the system, a station within 30 miles, and not duplicating its program; to that extent I think that the Federal Government has the authority and the right to act.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I think there have been indications all through this thing that city commissions are not to be trusted and that they do not have enough sense to know what they are doing and they would sell out for a quarter to anybody and I have not found it that way.

I do not think the people in Washington ought to take the position now or ever before that they know everything, because I know a lot of people back home who know a lot more than a lot of people I know up here. I never did feel any smarter up here than I did back there I think the local people ought to have a say in this.

Mr. FORD. That is the position we are advancing here before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pickle.

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Ford, this question: It seems to me this deals with some incon

sistency. You state in your conclusions that the FCC should be given limited jurisdiction over the CATV system.

As I understand what you just said to Mr. Rogers, by limited you mean only with respect to carriage and with respect to nonduplication?

Mr. FORD. That is right.

Mr. PICKLE. That is, you will carry and not duplicate without carrying? Is that what you mean?

Mr. FORD. There is a little more to it than that. I think the grant of authority is a little broader than that. I think that probably the Commission is best qualified, for example, to determine technical parameters of systems, to prescribe what will produce good signals and so there will be good uniformity in the construction of facilities. This would be included in the grant of authority and not limited. Mr. PICKLE. You do say though the FCC should be given jurisdiction over CATV?

Mr. FORD. That is right.

Mr. PICKLE. Yet you go further in your statement and say you oppose any limitation on the origination of programs by CATV. Mr. FORD. That is right.

Mr. PICKLE. You want them to be given jurisdiction but you do not want them to put any limitation on your broadcasting?

Mr. FORD. Only what I have said, 315 and 327, political broadcasts and identification of sponsors. I am saying there should be no greater limitation. The Commission said if you originate we will decide what you can originate and what you cannot originate, and to me this is censorship, a prior restraint on what can be said.

Mr. PICKLE. Did you say somewhere in your statement that you did not think the Commission had the constitutional authority to enter into this field?

Mr. FORD. I do not think they have the constitutional authority to tell you that you can talk about the mayor and put a program on about the mayor but you cannot put a program on about something in another town.

As I understand it, their position is, in the report and order that carrying the proceedings of city councils and things like that will be fine and those they will let us carry, also time, weather, news, they will let us carry by general rule, but when it comes to entertainment or anything like that, by rule they will exclude it.

In other words, they would decide what they would let you say and in what areas you could talk, and in what areas you could not talk. To me, this is a violation of a constitutional right.

Mr. PICKLE. Do you think the CATV should have the right to originate their own programs?

Mr. FORD. I think you have to keep clearly in mind when a CATV originates its own program, it is not acting as a CATV. It is acting as closed television system then.

The terms in which I am speaking, CATV picks up the signal as an antenna service for a particular citizen. That is the true concept of the community antenna.

When a community antenna uses a separate channel in the cable that is its antenna system, then it is not actually acting as a community antenna system in that respect; it is acting as a closed circuit television system.

62-610-66— 11

Mr. PICKLE. If you have the right to originate your programs, would you say it would be practical that in time broadcasting or origination could grow to possibly much larger concepts than exist now? Mr. FORD. I do not visualize that myself.

Mr. PICKLE. You would admit that is a good possibility?

Mr. FORD. No; I would not admit that. It could be a substantial growth.

Mr. PICKLE. You are just being a little cautious?

Mr. FORD. No; because we do not have the capacity to deliver a signal to a rural area on an economical basis.

Mr. PICKLE. Can you exist now without the broadcasting stations, the major networks and CATV?

Mr. FORD. I don't think so.

Mr. PICKLE. You know so.

were not for that.

Mr. FORD. I agree with that.

You would not even have a job if it

Mr. PICKLE. I am not arguing the point. I am saying you operate only because they (broadcasting) exist and there is a tremendous amount invested.

You feel no other element should be allowed to grow so large that it would knock them out or it would compete too heavily for everybody's reception?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I asked a question or made a statement or propounded such a big one as to cause confusion.

Mr. FORD. I cannot agree to that. I do not think in the first place it is going to happen. What you are asking me to say on a theoretical basis, if we could deliver a signal to every home in the United States that we should not be permitted to do it.

On a theoretical basis if we could do that, then I would oppose any regulation, because then you would have the marketplace involved. The question then would be, with a closed circuit nationwide system, will the people subscribe to it or will they listen only over the air. Theoretically I do not think I can put myself in that position. From a practical point of view I would say the CATV systems cannot grow that big at the present state of the art.

Mr. PICKLE. You say in black and white here, "We oppose any limitation on the origination of programs by CATV."

As I read it that means you would just like to get into the full business of originating and broadcasting a program without any limitation, generally speaking.

Mr. FORD. No, I think you will find I qualified that by earlier referring to sections 315 and 317 of the Communications Act. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ford, may I join my colleagues in thanking you for a very fine. statement. I am frank to admit that after hearing it, it could well be that the bill would do more than I assumed it would and had been told it would do.

Now, may I for the purpose of clarifying a problem about which I am concerned-I referred this morning to a small TV station serving a local community in my district. It was not doing so well. There was an attempt to move it into the State of Iowa at one time, which