Mr. LINDOW. In the traditional situation, no, where the CATC system is in a community that is within the service areas of the stations it is carrying, and where it is acting as the type of service fill-in that I talked about, I mentioned a few moments ago; no, I don't think they should be asked to pay in that case.

Mr. PICKLE. Well, are you saying, in effect, that in some instances they ought to pay for that signal and in other instances they should not pay for it?

Mr. LINDOW. Yes, it should depend on the situation.

Mr. PICKLE. Now, that to me seems a little inconsistent. With respect to they ought to have origination or no origination. It seems to me we have not got a position as to what you think is fair and right, but whether that is an individual feeling or not, do you think that the CATV people would pay for this service, or are willing to pay for it, want to pay for the right to broadcast any signal they pick up off the air, without any regulations?

Mr. LINDOW. They have been fighting the idea of anything that they consider a threat of the possibility that they might have to do it, very hard, so I would assume they would be opposed to it.

Mr. PICKLE. You just said you don't think any CATV man would want to pay for picking up these signals and using them. He has been getting them for nothing now, and I rather then imagine most people don't like to start paying for something they have been getting for nothing.

I think it is an intriguing thought, and I don't know, and I have had no discussion on that, and the sense, since these hearings have been underway, is whether you could sell or think you should sell these broadcasts, and then should be able to pay for them in this if we wanted to, and we would not have any squabble.

Mr. LINDOW. I think where the CATV is acting as a fill-in in type of service in the area that the station is normally serving, there is a real question as to whether it would be appropriate.

Mr. SPRINGER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. PICKLE. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. SPRINGER. I believe this is true, and I will ask the gentleman if this is not true. That there are now two cases pending in, I believe, the Federal court in the State of New York.

Mr. LINDOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Which will determine this question of whether or not a copyright law is in effect?

Mr. LINDOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. When a signal is taken from another station's antenna and used on CATV, so I assume that within the next year this question will be determined, and we will actually know, then, whether or not they have a right in the nature of a copyright. Is that correct? Mr. LINDOW. I think that is correct. It may take a little longer than a year before the matter is resolved. There will be appeals. Mr. SPRINGER. But, it is in the court for determination. It is before the court right now.

Thank you.

Mr. PICKLE. Well, then, if it is in the court, you are not willing to wait for that, for the court to act.

Mr. LINDOW. No, I think this. Before the court acts on this copyht matter, it might well be some time. We are faced with this loding situation that Mr. Springer and I were just discussing a moments ago. There is also the possibility of the copyright law ng amended ultimately, although hearings have only just begun summer, on the Senate side, and the matter on the House side not yet concluded. I think these are things that are some distance and meanwhile we are faced with an explosive situation.

This thing is breaking out all over the United States, as evidence has

wn.

Ir. PICKLE. Mr. Lindow, I agree with you that it is expanding very idly, and otherwise, we would not be having this problem here

y.

ou refer to CATV though, as a monopoly, and if it was allowed to tinue, would be a definite monopoly in the field. By the same en, it you take that as monopoly, would you not say that broadcast monopoly?

Ir. LINDOW. No, sir, I don't, because I think it is quite a different

g. Ir. PICKLE. Well now, you are assigned a certain channel. I was he radio business once myself. We had a certain frequency ased to us. We had to put up two towers, so that our signal would lirected. We could broadcast on one band. Nobody else would dcast, we were protected and nobody could use that signal but us. ow that is in a sense a monopoly, is it not?

r. LINDOW. Well, in the sense that no one else at that same point broadcast on that same frequency, it is, but in the sense that there other stations possible in a community or in the area, you don't py a monopoly position.

r. PICKLE. Well the point I am making is that I think it was fair, as a broadcaster have got just as much monopoly when you have an assigned signal or a freguency or a channel as certainly the V would have in their particular field, and no matter how you it, it is a sort of monopoly on both sides.

>w I want to repeat again what I said earlier, and I am getting a bit weary of some of these hearings, because the broadcasters, I , have got to be protected, because they are the mother industry, riginators, and you ought to be kept strong.

t I don't think you ought to try to cut off CATV totally, and them where they are just completely dependent on the broad

rs.

w maybe the law is a little bit vague, and I think the Congress, ups, ought to spell it out where we think it is but both of you are ight. The American people are entitled to some protection on hing, and when you say that the economies or the economics of tuation does not enter into it, of course it does. And I think the nment intended for the economics to be a part of this factor when made these allotments, and I think the same is true of your

V.

LINDOW. Well, I think there is a distinction, getting back to nonopoly point, between a broadcasting situation and a CATV

tor.

A broadcaster does not occupy this area to the exclusion of

other broadcasters being able to come into that area, provided there are frequencies available to him.

Mr. PICKLE. I thought they do.

Mr. LINDOW. I think what we are talking about in the case of CATV and I believe what the Paul Rodgers from NARUC, who was testifying here this morning was talking about on CATV and its monopolistic aspects is that generally speaking, you are not going to run two cables down the same block to service customers in the same block.

In other words, you are subscribing to one cable system, and that is the one that is available to you, and there are no others. Now there are a number of radio and television stations that you can receive, and they vary in number, depending upon your location and all sorts of things, and conditions.

So I think there is a distinction there, and that is why I beg to differ with you, sir, in your statement that there is not a difference.

Mr. PICKLE. Well, there might be a difference, but you have got to look at it mighty close to note it, I would think.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Satterfield.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested, frankly, in two things, and your observation about two things that this bill, H.R. 13286, that we are considering, would do.

One, I understand it is your position that the FCC should have authority for these systems, because they are in the business of broadcasting, and that is a matter of definition, is it not?

Mr. LINDOW. Well, I don't think they or we say that CATV is in the business of broadcasting. I may be picking at a term there.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Let's put it another way. I think you stated that the transmission of signals over a CATV system was broadcasting. Mr. LINDOW. We say that it is a transmission service, and they are transmitting this information over their facilities.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Do you confine that to the transmission of signals that are taken off the air?

Mr. LINDOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. How about signals that are not taken off the air?

Mr. LINDOW. On a closed circuit matter?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIDOW. I don't believe that H.R. 13286 considers that question. Mr. SATTERFIELD. I think it does, because if you read it, and I don't think it is subject to any other interpretation, but any system like this. in the first instance that it takes the signal off the air loses its right to originate any programs without the prior approval of the FCC.

Mr. LINDOW. I think we are getting into a legal area. I would like to call on our counsel, who is better qualified to answer that for you. Mr. SATTERFIELD. All right.

Mr. JENNES. I understood your question to Mr. Lindow to relate to a closed circuit system that did nothing but operate closed circuit, did not take signals off the air.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Let's take a closed circuit one, now.

Mr. JENNES. Well, the statutory basis for the Commission's regution lies in the fact that the act applies to interstate and foreign mmunications by wire or radio, and when you look at the definition interstate communications by wire or radio, CATV comes within at definition.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. If it moves by wire interstate?

Mr. JENNES. That is right. Whether or not the system itself is loted in one locality is not pertinent, but it is part of the interstate ow of interstate communications by wire.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Let's take a closed circuit system that is located holly within a State, that originates all its programs. Do you admit e FCC has no jurisdiction over this?

Mr. JENNES. I think it is very doubtful that the Commission has risdiction over that; yes, sir.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, I notice that the definition of broadcasting the Communications Act of 1934 relates to dissemination of radio

mmunications.

I take it, then, that when you again consider the CATV is broadsting, that we are talking about a change in that definition.

Mr. JENNES. NO: I don't regard CATV as broadcasting. It is a cility which is engaged in the interstate communications by wire on dio but not broadcasting.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, how about when-I must have misunderod the statement which was made earlier, because I understood at there had been a statement made.

Let us pass that for the moment, but I am interested in the next p in this thing. On what basis do we justify giving to the FCC right to say that you cannot originate any programs on CATV stem when it does not have the right as far as an open broadcast tion?

Mr. JENNES. Well, the justification, I think, lies in what I would yard as a reasonable classification. Now the CATV system is enged in the process of taking television signals off the air, transtting them, and its entire existence depends upon the availability of > television signals which it picks up.

Now it is one thing to talk about a closed wire television system, ch as was proposed in California, and which was outlawed by erendum, and then the Supreme Court of California reversed on t, where it was standing on its own feet.

The great trouble with CATV origination programing is that ATV used the signals of television stations to get subscribers, to pand subscribers, then has a large audience base, to which it is oviding a number of signals which it obtains for free from the evision stations, and then with the large base of subscribers, is in position to start feeding in program originations, and then be in a sition to take from the very television broadcast services on which feeds the programs which it would then sell to the recipients. Mr. SATTERFIELD. And you feel that is a constitutional justification giving the FCC the power to prohibit those originations? Mr. JENNES. Yes. 1 think that this is a constitutional justification, d there is nothing in this California decision which has been rered to by some of the earlier witnesses which would say the conry.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, I think perhaps what you are really saying is that this is necessary to achieve a desired result, rather than a firm constitutional basis for giving this jurisdiction.

Mr. JENNES. No; not really. I am saying two things. That in the first place, where you don't have a total prohibition, and this is not a total prohibition, this is a prohibition against one kind of

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It is a total prohibition against originating pro

grams.

Mr. JENNES. By CATV, but only by CATV. That it is proper, when you consider such a prohibition, or limitation, to take into account the public-interest considerations which lie on both sides. In the Associated Press case, the Supreme Court said some time ago, freedom of the press under the first amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.

What I am suggesting is that when and if Congress finds in enacting legislation that the effect of program origination by CATV would be to adversely affect local and area television and that there would be a repression of freedom of press by CATV, itself, by doing away with local and area television services, this would be a proper thing for the Congress to balance.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Farnsley.

Mr. FARNSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Witness. This study proves that public street lights and highway lights would cut street violence and juvenile delinquency in this country, and automobile accidents, by a third. I realize that your people get a lot of mail. I do, too. I sent this at Government expense, and you ought to do something about it. Either I have wasted money, or you have wasted Government money. I am going to say after the hearings. that if they start interrupting "Batman" to say that the Library of Congress says that street lights would cut street violence, juvenile delinquency, and automobile accidents, I am going to be very much impressed with CATV.

That is not a question. That is just a joke, sir.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. When CATV people testified, and I am trying to get down to the specific area we may be left within terms of final debates as to where we go, they agreed pretty much to the protection as to simultaneous nonduplication; agreed pretty much to carry the local stations; they agreed that to tape was a violation of copyright laws, or should not be done, indicating they would accept a limitation of not taping a program like a movie, and reshowing it on a CATV. But it seems to me, then, that

Mr. LINDOW. That was off the air, I believe, wasn't it?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes; correct, off the air. In other words, taking someone else's program and taping it.

Now it seems to me that we are left, then, with a significant amount of agreement in protection of existing local stations, with a significant amount of protection for broadcasters as far as network programs are concerned.

In other words, the established areas that are doing this now.