Studio: 140 S W. Columbia St.

Telephone: 226-3333 TWX No.: 503-224-1974.

Ownership: M. M To:kon & Harvey Benson, 50% (as trustees under
voting trust u original stockholders); Newhouse Bcstg. Corp.
50% KOI TV officers: C. Howard Lane, pres.; Harry H. Buck-
endan!, o, E R. Vadeboncoeur, v.p; Clyde E. Phillips, secy.-
treas Harvey S. Benson, asst. secy; Fred W. Albertson, director.
Newhouse family also publishes Portland Oregonian and Oregon
Journal, Syracuse Post Standard and Herald-Journal. For other
broadcasting and newspaper interests see WSYR-TV, Syracuse.
Began Operation Sept. 29, 1953.

Represented (sales) by Harrington, Righter & Parsons Inc.; Art
Moore & Assoc. (Pacific Northwest).

Represented (legal) by Dow, Lohnes & Albertson.
Represented (engineering) by Creutz & Snowberger.
Personnel:

Over 50%

Net Weekly
Circulation

State
County

Total
Households

TV Homes Home

OREGON

Benton

12,100

10,200

85

C. HOWARD LANE, president & managing director.
ROBERT MCGILL, local sales manager.
JOHN PALMER, national sales manager.

Cowlitz

TED W. COOKE, operations manager & film buyer.

Klickitat
Skamania
Wahkiakum

31,200 29,400 19,200 17,800 4,600

3,800

བ་་་་

94

92

84

87

88

LUKE ROBERTS, program director.

LOUIS BOOKWALTER, chief engineer.

OREGON

RALPH GREER, traffic manager.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Thomas J. Whyte.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Whyte.
You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. WHYTE, ON BEHALF OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA AND MID-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY TELEVISION ASSO-
CIATION

Mr. WHYTE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Thomas J. Whyte. I am an attorney practicing law in the city of Fairmont, W. Va., and am here representing the West Virginia and Mid-Atlantic Community Television Association. This association consists of 176 community antenna systems with approximately 145,000 subscribing television homes in the States of West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia.

The members of my association strongly oppose the discriminatory provisions of this bill which would give the copyright owner the right to restrict the television reception these members provide for the public in their communities and penalize the individual viewer, who, because of topography and distance, uses a community antenna system rather than an individual antenna.

Initially, I would like to point out that the number of community antenna systems represented in our association is just the tip of an iceberg of many community antenna systems in these States. Where, as in these States, the terrain is rugged, television reception provided by means of master antenna systems is extremely common.

Typically, communities and homes are located in the valleys. In order to get adequate television reception, it is necessary to place the antenna at a sufficient height to be struck by the television signals without having them blocked by the terrain. If the home is located on high ground or terrain which is otherwise favorable, the homeowner may be able to get unblocked reception by rooftop antennas, or even in some cases "rabbit ears" on or near the receiving set. However, due to the terrain location, reception in most locations may be inadequate or require an expensive antenna installation. Accordingly, antennas are therefore often placed on high ground, and wires, cable, and other connecting equipment are used to connect the antenna to the receiving sets in a number of homes in the community.

Community antenna systems were first constructed in this area in the early fifties and have increased in number over the years. In order to give this subcommittee some idea of the large number of community antenna systems in this area of the country, I would like to point out that, based on a survey conducted in my own home county-Marion County, W. Va.-in 1962, there were more than 40 community antenna systems in that county.

The number of homes using a specific system varied from less than 50 to thousands. I am sure that many other counties of West Virginia would have at least as many antenna systems as Marion County. Most of these community antenna systems were owned cooperatively by the homeowners using them for television reception; just over 10 percent were investor-owned systems. Although this survey has not been repeated since 1962, I am quite confident that the number of antenna systems in the country has not decreased.

Many of the cooperatively owned antenna systems have a substantial number of subscribers. For example, persons living in the suburb of Bellview, in Fairmont, get their television reception on a cooperative system which has approximately 600 connections. I lived in Bellview several years ago and utilized this cooperative system for my television reception.

As is typical for these cooperative systems, the Bellview system is jointly owned by the property owners of the community, and persons utilizing the antenna service provided by the system pay a fee for maintaining the service.

The equipment used by all of these antenna systems, whether cooperative or investor owned, is basically similar and is comparable or identical to equipment used by homeowners for their own antennas. There is nothing complex or mystical about a community antenna system. It merely provides an antenna and a working connection from the antenna to the viewer's receiving set, so that he can enjoy the same television reception that would be available if his home were more favorably located and he had his own antenna.

These systems are important to the public in this area, since they make it possible to receive and enjoy television. We fail to see why the residents of this area using such community antenna systems for their television reception should be faced with a discriminatory copyright burden, compared to their more fortunate city brethren, who can enjoy their television with their own rooftop or rabbit-ear antennas without copyright problems.

All people pay some charge for their television antenna service. The person who has a rooftop antenna installed will have to pay the television dealer or repairman who installs it and may have to pay maintenance charges or other costs to keep the antenna in working order. The homeowner who is a member of a cooperative will pay part of the initial cost for installing the antenna system and will pay a monthly fee to maintain the service.

The subscribers to an investor-owned community antenna system will typically pay an installation charge for connection to the system and a flat monthly service charge. All of these people pay for the antenna or antenna service they wish to use with their own television set to enjoy the entertainment provided by television broadcasters.

We fail to see any logical ground for distinguishing among these methods of paying for an antenna and to impose copyright liability on community antenna systems. All use similar or comparable equipment to perform the same reception function.

The only ground for distinction suggested seriously by copyright owners is that the community antenna systems are engaged in providing their reception service for profit.

(Mr. Whyte's prepared statement included the following footnote:) I would like to note for the subcommittee that, although I understand that some copyright witnesses have indicated that the bill contains an exemption for cooperative antenna systems, the language of the pertinent exemption section (§ 109 (5)) does not clearly grant such an exemption. It would appear that a cooperative system would have to meet both the requirement that its service was not for "the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage" and the requirement that this service be provided "without charge to the recipients" in order to be exempt. Cooperatives do impose a charge for their antenna service.