In short, it has been my experience that cable operators who are unregulated do as they please, when they please, why they please, without regard to the rights of any individual station operator, network, program producer or anyone else, and they do this for profit without regard even to the rights of the public to free public service television.

As an operator of a small market UHF station ruthlessly forced out of business by CATV, which competed against us for viewers, and which had none of the usual costs of programing, I can tell you that this unfair competition as it exists today is a threat to the hoped-for expansion of UHF broadcasting, and in order to allay this threat we have reluctantly entered the CATV business ourselves. We have done so because without effective FCC regulation and copyright protection we feel it is the only way to protect and thereby continue effective free local and public service television. It would be foolhardy for anyone from a business standpoint to enter the broadcast field in a small market under the conditions I have outlined. An important part of all stations' cost is directly attributable to program

expense.

The usual portion of programing to the total cost varies from 30 to 40 percent. Incidentally, as was brought out earlier in testimony, the CATV profit is estimated at about 57 percent. Average station profit is about 27 percent. CATV's under present conditions spend not one cent for programs. Since we and the CATV's compete for viewing audience our cost disadvantage resulted in our being forced to abandon local service. The fact that the CATV's paid nothing for programs permitted them to spend money to attract larger and larger audiences. They engage in advertising and public relations counsel while we were investing in programs designed to serve the local interests.

What happened to us in Greenfield is a microcosm of what is happening and what will happen throughout the country whenever a television station is forced to compete on these grounds with CATV. We learned the hard way and the viewing public, the public that legitimate broadcasters are bound to serve, are the real losers. They lose the opportunity for local expression through television in all fields of endeavor from political through the arts and entertainment. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Marlowe, you are now at Springfield, Mass.?

Mr. MARLOWE. Yes, I am.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. But you were formerly with the UHF station at Greenfield, Mass.?

Mr. MARLOWE. Yes, that is correct, both stations owned by the same corporation.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. How large a community is Greenfield?

Mr. MARLOWE. Approximately 19,000.

Mr. TENZER. But it goes into a wider area, does it not? That is the import of the question.

Excuse me for breaking in, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Of course.

And that station didn't succeed.

It may well have fallen to VHF competition as well or other compe

tition, really, as well as the CATV?

Mr. MARLOWE. I think perhaps

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Many have failed, have they not?

Mr. MARLOWE. Yes. My personal feeling is this station could have succeeded without the additional impact of duplication by cable systems which represent perhaps 45,000 people within its primary viewing audience. The cables duplicating our NBC programing and other programing are reducing our mathematical probability by 50 percent on each of these cables.

My own feeling is that this was sufficient mathematical factor to reduce the profit potential of the station to zero.

Mr. FIRESTONE. My name is Martin Firestone, counsel for Springfield. There are no other TV stations allocated to Greenfield. It is the only local station and it gets very poor-and in most instances there is no VHF service from surrounding areas.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. From what point do the stations brought in by CATV emanate?

Mr. MARLOWE. From Boston, Mass., approximately a hundred miles; from Plattsburgh, N.Y., over a hundred miles; from Hartford, Conn., about 80 to 90 miles. There is one microwave-connected cable within the area which rebroadcasts programing from New York City.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Is this not a matter that you feel the Federal Communications Commission ought to have something to say about, that is, competition of stations, from any source, and particularly from CATV's as a matter of public policy, national policy, rather than strictly a matter of copyright law?

Mr. MARLOWE. I don't believe it is strictly a matter of copyright, but I believe the copyright infringement, for example, of our own programs is a serious matter, if not from a financial standpoint, from a standpoint of our right to own them and to control or determine who shall use them and for what.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. St. Onge.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is CATV still operating in the Greenfield area?

Mr. MARLOWE. In the Greenfield area CATV is prospering.

Mr. ST. ONGE. That answers my question. Thank you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Tenzer?

Mr. TENZER. No question.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Counsel?

Thank you, Mr. Marlowe.

Mr. MARLOWE. Thank you.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. That concludes today's very provocative and interesting hearings. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m. Wednesday next.

(Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m. the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m. Wednesday, June 30, 1965.)

о