Public Television Hearings

And there are many examples other examples of this lack of information or of missing information now to me these are deeply disturbing findings. I believe profoundly that democracy cannot truly function with out an informed public opinion. If public opinion is an enlightened national policy is likely to be sound if it is unenlightened national policy is likely to be both on and on. As for the cultural area there are widespread widespread reports of our quote cultural explosion and certainly huge amount of mounts of cash are being expended and the effort to elevate taste. But one wonders whether what has been called the edifice complex concentration on construction rather than content is not still the prevailing motif.

I am glad we talked more about the Lincoln Center than we talk about that they call formants is in it. Yes. And I think all over the country. Getting this building and nobody's paying a great deal of attention to what goes on inside them. And this has become known as what I want. Someone else has called the edifice complex and I think it's a lovely phrase. Now it seems to make television can do outstanding jobs in both areas in the improvement of public opinion and in the elevation of public culture but public commercial television because of the very fact that it is commercial is not doing the jobs and will not do the nice for non-commercial television. It has not done them either because it has not had the funds and has not acquired the kind of audience that really counts. I think we have to recognize that private TV is basically a medium of entertainment

anything its viewers a quite a by way of information or culture is incidental and I would say almost accidental it is intent on giving the public what it wants or at least what it thinks the public wants and I'm not at all certain that has adequate means of finding out. That is the way it is and that is the way it will be unless there is a radical change of viewpoint. And I say that is not likely. There is full evidence of this in the fact that of the 34 new programs on private TV it produced for the season beginning last September not a single one was related even remotely to public affairs. Now. Obviously and I do not deny it for a moment and I applaud private TV for it. In. Coverage on the spot

coverage of events such as the Kennedy tragedy astronaut adventures outstanding sports contests private TV doesn't often superb job. But for the news in general it applies only a bulletins service backed up occasionally by documentaries. Some of them good some of them not so good. Private TV does not provide adequate interpretation of the news or perspective on the news. And I think that in these days of complex a fair. Presentation of facts without a statement of the meaning of those facts has little significance. I feel that news must be done in graspable terms so that even the most hurried or elusive TV viewer will stop. Look and watch. And. The culture area of private TV has made some fine contributions. But these show are sporadic and

because they are not Bonanzas they are rarely granted primetime. As in the public affairs area. Great efforts and new approaches are required in this cultural area. It is obvious that one of the great problems of the future and it may be our greatest problem is the use of non-working Topham. Which as a result of automation is likely to increase sharply. TVs can provide programs for leisure time and it can supply guide polls for other leisure activities. Private TV is not headed in these directions either some of these observations of mine is that if we are to fully achieve these goals we must look to public TV. Now as I've indicated of the tests to be undertaken the most stringent it seems to me is the presentation of the news in an understandable way in order to provide the steering that public opinion required. Now this means

daily broadcasts at prime hours in which the news would be supplied in perspective. And I find news in the broadest way to include the significant trends of the times as well as the spot events. Now I feel that the ultimate impact of some event in a distant land should be set out in terms of what it will eventually mean in terms of local sacrifice as in the case of Vietnam where something that happened seven years ago we thought was very remote. This is now causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and that should be related in such matters as economic affairs as often as possible to local situations for example if I were dealing with a common market I would try to set out to give up a common market on the factory and so forth on Main Street. In other words as I see it there's no longer any such thing as foreign news.

It is all local. It is all the media. In addition I would include well-ordered and well moderated debates on the pressing issues of the day. I have been distressed as I'm sure you have been senator but the debate over Vietnam there's been a welter of words but the discussion has been uninformed distorted by emotion supplying little information little illumination and providing a heyday for the propagandists. Whether they be Dobbs the hawks or even out. As for cultural activity there is need on television for more is more music more art more discussion of books and even more philosophy if you would. None of these proposals mine rules out entertainment. My suggestion is only that entertainment be provided on a higher level. I believe profoundly that the public taste is far better than the PAP does fence's reckon that to be DFI hold that a minority audience for culture can be largely

increased. Public TV of course has devoted itself heavily to quote culture unquote and to apply but too much of it has been waging of what I call the Cold War. Hi Bravo should not mean that that should not be high yield and high spirits. In the cultural area also the effort should be local as well as national. It is of course highly desirable to present Great-Grandma grand opera grand art but it is also highly useful to tap the resources of communities and universities and to explain the newest show at the Arts Centre and to cooperate with local libraries and indicating the joys of reading. Now I find an essential difference between the Ford and the Carnegie philosophy's the Ford proposal I feel puts its main emphasis on a national approach paying too little attention to the functions and the needs of the community

stations. The Carnegie proposal on the other hand seems to me to exaggerate the potentialities of the community stations and to pay insufficient attention to the needs of the central operation. The true approach I believe is something between the two philosophies and the president's proposal and the bill which you have prepared in pursuance of that proposal seemed to me to be admirable admirable in this respect. In that. They suggest a combination of the best speeches of each of these programs. I repeat there is then a great need in both areas information and culture. But there is the larger question How is public TV to be financed. How fundamentally it seems to me we're still talking about education. Now federal support for education has long been recognized. And I ask why then should not public television be federally

financed and operated free of federal control as classroom education is financed. I suggest you read what I said with a great amount of timidity because I understand that's a dirty word in these parts that there is a parallel with the BBC. I feel about Operation above which I have made some exploration is on the whole a highly successful one and government interference is minimal. There are those who will say that the British tradition is different from mine but I insist that it is not as dissimilar as these opponents of federal action would have us believe. These critics and the big brother now dominates most phases of our life and it is now proposed to add to his jurisdiction. I say that the danger is not Big Brother but small sister a small sister will never raise a voice or suggest any important

steps to meet the constantly increasing number of new challenges because of the fear of government control it has been suggested before this committee that no public money should be appropriated for news operations. I disagree on two counts. First unless public money is forthcoming we shall never have the kind of programs I have attempted to describe here. Second the deluge of controversy and the cultural area is even greater than in the news area. And I cite as an example that going far back the battles that raged over the productions of the WPA. Now I repeat understanding of the news and thus the evolution of a sound public opinion are urgent matters. I believe that once the need for public TV is firmly recognized the means will be found. The Presidential I believe is an excellent one. But I think we should recognize that the appropriation is only seed money important

seed money but nevertheless seed money. What we're talking about is not nine or ten million dollars a year but something in the neighborhood of 200 million or even more. And this to my mind is a small price to pay for an informed public opinion and a higher cultural level. I do not want to give the impression that the seed money is not important. I think we have to make a start. But I think we should recognize is that it is only a start. Some of the support for public TV will come of course from private sources and maybe even the private TV will eventually pay more attention to these prime concerns. But it seems clear to me that a large part of the funds will have to be supplied by the federal government. The urgent assignment as I see it is to enlarge the size of television's minority audience of that segment to which there are programs. How in my view this is not an impossible task and this belief is based on some wholly intuitive guesses

to this effect and I hope Senator you will pardon these on galloped like statistics. Probably 20 percent of the population is moronic and we count them up another 20 percent is capable of learning if they had the desire to learn but they do not have it. Another 20 percent is really in for an hour. This leaves an area of 40 percent who are ready to listen if they are properly approach and that seems to me that the challenge lies in this gray area of the 40 percent. Public television as the president has said is a vital national resource. I feel it has the potential of being a great instrument and I feel too that it should be welded. As such it is an essential part of the National Service on it. Rest the whole nation will develop the kind of public opinion and the cultural viewpoints which are the hallmarks of true democracy.

Thank you very very much Mr. Marquel. I merely want to emphasize the point that you made with reference to governmental interference. I'm one of those who feels that if we draw a proper bill. And we as observed the very concept of the freedom. Of. Of. Education. That you can have a federal contribution and at the same time preserve this freedom and you make that point and you make it very well. Matter of fact we're doing that constantly. We give aid to secondary schools right. We give. We subsidize research. We don't tell them how to do their research. We do many many things along the educational. Field. And yet we have learned a long long time ago that if we're to do their job

successfully we've got to preserve. The right of a man to be free in his thinking. And in his motion. If he is to uplift educate whether it be academically or culturally or in the arts or the music or what have you. And I quite agree with you. Well we're talking about here in this bill is merely the mechanics to get the show on the road. But the big question is what is the show going to be all about. I think it has to be demonstrated still that public television can do an important job. I think this you are work not in your area and the people concerned it seems to me with educational television have to give a full demonstration of what it is capable of. What do you think now I mean just after all you are a well-educated man and and I consider to be one of the thinkers of our time what do you think isn't being told about Vietnam. People keep saying the matter hasn't been debated enough.

I here's the president every time he gets up to make a speech he talks about Vietnam. No matter who from the Congress is invited to go to make a speech on any subject usually ends up talking about Vietnam. What is it that's disturbing you and that disturbing a lot of people do you think that this matter is not being fully debated. Well what disturbs me is this that I think the debate without possession of the facts is not much of a debate and it seems to me there are certain facts about Viet Nam which the administration obviously cannot make public. I think there is some reason for a credibility gap. I think the administration is somewhat responsible for that. But the credibility gap is nothing like as large as the press pardon us has made it out to be. And I feel also I've said this to other newspaper people there is a credibility gap. But there is also on the part of the press responsibility.

As for the debate itself it bothers me because there is so much emotion involved in that debate and so level setting out of the fact. This applause or a call for you. This is the end of the morning. What is don't you know get down to leading the business. Of you. Mr. Markel I don't know how to thank you. I have made a fine contribution to this committee and I think what you have done has alerted us that not only must we think about the mechanics and the procedures. We also got to give a lot of serious thought to the substance of all of this programming. But don't you think Mr. Markel that much of this depends upon the caliber of the people that the president selects. Well I don't think any one committee can do it. I think it requires the concerted efforts of all those engaged in educational television. I don't think the debate in that on the examination can start too soon.

I think also if I may say so and I may be misguided about this. I think it is important for the Congress not to shy away from a news program. I just think it's urgent that it should not not after all a lot of these chaps go on Meet the Press and now meet the press. With all due respect to Mrs.. Feedback is devoted to making headlines rather than bring out a reasoned point of view and on educational television. I can see a real Meet the Press in which a senator would have a chance to express his important thoughts rather than his sensational. Well as and of that's one of the fallacies of the hurried tempo with the American people to a large extent. I've been asked many many times. Tell us all about it now but tell us in five minutes. No I will not ask you what you tell me.

Thank you very much Mr. McHale. That's. Next. This is Mr. McKay. Mr. McKay was very happy to have you and thank you very much for your indulgence. Mr. Michaella has to make a plane back to New York. This is kind of where the vice president of the American Telephone and Telegraph he may proceed. Well Mr. Chairman I agree. Kenneth Makai vice president of engineering for the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. I appreciate this opportunity to present the Bell Systems views on the public television Act of 1967. At the outset let me say that we are in accord with the purposes of this act in our view. It provides a sound start. Towards the development of a system of public television in this country. We also applaud the manifest interest displayed by this committee. And the scope of the inquiry. You've clearly consulted a broad spectrum of

authorities and you've rigorously examined the implications of the detailed provisions of the proposed legislation and in so doing you've already gone far to assure the public that all aspects of its interest will be given fair weight in the national decisions on this vital matter. No we claim no special competence in recommending the organizational format that can best Sure freedom imagination and initiative and the expansion and development of non-commercial broadcasting. We're not educators and we're not broadcast. Our business is communication. Consequently my further comments will be limited to those aspects of the Act and the various proposals for its further implementation which have a bearing on the field of communications. My comments will be quite brief

for measured against the full range of policy questions the committee must weigh to assure vitality and independence of public television. The question of that medium's particular transmission requirements is I believe a relatively minor one. Nor does it vault too large in the scale of the long run financial requirements of a fully developed system of educational television transmission or as it's called in the bill interconnection does relate to the development of TV in two ways. First in the pattern of program distribution or of interconnection it might be most appropriate for public television. And second in the prospect that satellite transmission might offer economies for which educational television might derive some measure of financial support. Now I have three main points that I'd like to make on

these matters. The first is that whatever the pattern of TV's transmission requirements may turn out to be the Bell system is going to do its very best to meet them. It's now just 40 years since the Bell System first demonstrated long distance television. It was on April the 7th of 1927 President Hoover who was then secretary of commerce and Walter to ask Gifford the president of our company conversed between Washington and New York. While I talk Mr. Gifford watched Mr Hoover on a TV screen about two and a half inches square. Now you know getting in 1948 first on a regional basis and on a national basis. Our facilities have been providing the means for highly developed the flexible system. Of network television that we have in the country today and our ability to do so is very largely based on developments

that have arisen from our own laboratories notably continuing advances in coaxial cable and microwave radio relay systems and our efforts to develop television transmission continues apace. Witness the first satellite transmission of television by a Telstar. However as we told this committee last August our interest in this business is not a proprietary one. We recognize that we shall continue in it only so long as our services remain the best in the most economical way to do the job and it's in the same spirit. We face the prospect. Of a considerable expansion of the program transmission requirements of educational television. Now my second point is this. We believe that communications satellites can offer significant economies and domestic communications of all kinds and this includes television transmission. Now to this

end the Bell System last December proposed to the Federal Communications Commission a combined space Earth communication system designed to provide for the optimum use of satellites and terrestrial facilities for communications services of all types. Voice data extending between now and the year 1980. Now this proposal reflects our conviction that the expanding requirements of all users of common carrier communications services. This includes commercial TV and educational TV that they can most economically be met by a purpose satellite system integrated with terrestrial facility in such a way as to optimize the advantages of each and were anxious to proceed promptly with the implementation of the first stage of

such a domestic satellite system. Whether the system as it develops will be deployed in precisely the configuration we proposed. I'm not sure when we consider the pace of advance. Today's technology. Is a virtual certainty that new considerations will arise and they'll alter in some degree the economic balance between satellite and terrestrial facilities on which the design is based. Yet I believe that satellites will play an important role in the future domestic communications system in this country. What is important however is the principle upon which our proposal to the FCC is predicated. The principle that satellite should be employed in domestic communications so as to provide there advantages to the benefit of all users of communications services addition to cost the need to assure reliability through diversity

and the importance of conserving the resources so the frequency spectrum and the equitorial orbit path. Are other factors that must receive very careful attention. Now we recognize that the way satellites may come to be used in domestic communications is not specifically at issue in this hearing. The committee knows the FCC is currently considering the whole question of satellite systems for domestic applications. Our proposal for an integrated multi-purpose satellite system. Is but one of several proposals which call all or that have been submitted in the course of these proceedings. Some of these proposals call for specialized systems for television distribution alone. Now admittedly there remains considerable disagreement over the relative merits of these proposals. I

think that searching analysis and systems engineering are going to be required to reach the right answers on these matters. In our view this decision will have far reaching consequences. For inevitably the establishment of specialized system by preempting satellite Usie would seriously delay if it did not altogether preclude the economies of scale and the reliability of service that would flow. The general public from a multi purpose satellite serving all user. But this is my third point. Public Television need not wait for domestic satellite bill S11 60 does not hinge on the use of satellites or for that matter on any particular mode of transmission. Satellites are relevant to the public television only to the extent that they may provide more economical interconnection. As I've indicated we believe that satellites can and will play an important

role in this regard. But the establishment of any satellite system to meet the reasonable needs of educational television can take several years. Fortunately however the means of interconnection for public television are available now. As I said at the outset when the Bell System are ready to do everything we properly can to provide services that match the needs and resources of public television. And there is a measure of this intent. We last week filed with the FCC a tariff that will permit us on a trial basis to offer television transmission service between 2:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon at about half of current rates. Wireless tariff is available to all our customers for program transmission service is designed to meet on the basis of our reading of the Carnegie commission's report appears to be one of Bay public television's basic needs.

This is an economical means transmitting program tapes during off our off peak hours for later broadcast at times of the local stations own choosing. And I'm hopeful that the educational TV broadcasters will soon make effective use of this new service. We're not going to wait until the conclusion of this experiment to consult with authorities in the field of educational broadcast. These consultations are going on right now with the aim of developing further offerings which are tailored to their needs. In this connection we note that section 3 9 6 8 of the bill that's on page 17 provides that nothing in the communications act of 1934 shall be construed as preventing the common carriers from offering free or reduced rate communication interconnection services for each TV. I don't

believe that I need belabor the point. That there is nothing free that somebody doesn't have to pay for and it will be equally apparent that reduced rates for each TV have implications which relate to other users of life and other services however the enactment of this section of the bill would reflect a policy that public TV should receive interconnection services at the last feasible cost. Let me say we're not unsympathetic to this objective and we share the interest in developing a sound basis for supporting MTV in this regard. We shall certainly continue to search for ways by which we may come up with interconnection rates to the advantage of this medium necessarily and properly. Any such proposals would require the concurrence of the Federal Communications Commission.

We are talking now even of conventional means of interconnection. Yes sir. I think out of necessity we have to look at the overall picture of interconnection for each TV. Not simply restricted to one mode of transportation which would be a satellite. No but there is a distinction between a cable or a microwave. So much to microwave as the cable and the satellite. Because essentially the atmosphere belongs to the people. It's the public domain. A tremendous amount of money has been expended by the government in exploring space. And a private concern that is privately owned comes along and takes it over. And begins to make a profit on it and that raises the question. That is a question that concerns quite a few members of the Congress as a matter of fact. That's one of the biggest hurdles I had to leap. And to overcome at the time that I

managed to build on Comsat. Whether or not. We weren't given away a boon that belong to all the people of the country and what were the people getting back for it. There was a feeling of time that comes that belong was a public corporation. Well it's not a public corporation the private corporation. It it's managed by its its owned by its stockholders. And while it is true that the president appoints a certain number of the directors in the public interest the fact still remains that whatever profits they make go to the stockholders and do not go to the taxpayers of this country. And that's the question that you have. And of course the Ford Foundation comes along and cultivates that concept. Their theory is that it should be a non-profit corporation. They'll have no stockholders and whatever profits are derived by them will going into programming for educational purposes for the benefit of all of the people of

the country. I realize that veers away from our whole concept of private enterprise but the fact still remains that it is the government of the United States that spend billions and billions and billions of dollars to explore and perfect our activities in space and that belongs to all the people. Now how do they get a dividend out of this. And you're saying in essence And you're right in making this argument that if you give a preferential rate even for a noble purpose somebody else has to pay the bill. That's true in a private company. That's true in a private company. But whether or not that may be true in a non-profit corporation of course raises another question. I realize that when you're speaking about interconnection on cables that belongs to you. You buy the franchise you pay for it. You are responsible of course to certain regulatory agencies that you can only make a certain percentage of profit on your

investment. That's all true. You're under supervision. But the fact still remains that 80 to stock is about the best on the market still. It's a blue chip and it's a blue chip because it has always rended always rended a very very comfortable and reasonable return on the investment Westergaard sir. I think that the bar is educational television is concerned that the stations ought to use those means of interconnection which are not at all. We are testing that engine to make their use. You made a fine point here the fact still remains that one is separated from the other. I mean while we're discussing the satellite the satellite itself is not is not a necessary predicate for these public television Corp. you're making that point yes. And the further point that you are making is that if you could have a tie in between your terrestrial and your satellite

in all probability by joining the two together you could affect some economies. Yes but that's the point you make. Again you have expertise in this particular line and it is true. If it hadn't been for the Bell system we might not have had Telstra. That's true and you've spent a tremendous amount of money in research and you've been of tremendous help to the whole development of space and satellite activities. But the problem that we have to overcome here is how do you preserve the public investment in this whole venture and how do you do it and how do you do it properly. And after all I can see a reason I can see a reason for a preference here for educational purposes for the simple reason that that would be one way of any company who is given this franchise or given this boon if you will. You say. Which of course can be characterized as the public domain ought to pay it

back in public affairs ought to pay it back in public service and I don't know of any better public service that they could be than lifting the cultural standards of our people educating our people as much as we possibly can so that they can be more knowledgeable and better carry out their responsibility of citizenship. And that's the reason why I think we wrote this in this bill. That's the reason why we talked about preferential rates and free rates because I think that the public interest is involved. Well I hope you'll understand. I can't be very much more definite at this point on the reduced rate. Question primarily because the specific needs I think of public television have yet to emerge. These are things which will be defined hopefully by the corporations and I'm not arguing with you. I'm not evading the question I'm merely making an observation.

I can understand your position completely and I respect it. I absolutely respect it. And it's and it's a very fair and reasonable one. But you must admit this that in so far as your responsibility viz a viz the public is concerned and mine there is a slight difference if not a large difference. I'm not sure that there isn't. Well different certainly. But I think what we're both looking for is the best means of providing transmission for educational television yes. But at what price. That's the question. At what price. Term best include that. Wow. What you're seemed to me the minute you give a preferential rate to people who use television for educational purposes you're going to take the money off the backs of other people. That's what you're saying in a large sense and you're trying to play down this whole business of preferential rates. And I can't blame you because you are your. Yes you come along and you say but if you use it at

certain times of the day. If you use it at certain times of the day you can get a cheaper rate. Well now you're doing us a favor but you're doing yourself a favor too because that's the time when you got slack business and you'd like to fill it in. Right. And that's the profit motive. I can't be critical of that. I can be critical of that. The way you search for profits we search for votes maybe in that regard maybe in that regard we're both in the same boat. Well are you going to be sure that we're going to work closely with the corporation. I know that I have been a great help and I watch it and know that I'm not being critical I'm not being critical. There is one point I'd like to allude to that was brought up this morning. It's just a minor clarifying change. We might suggest in the bill this had to do with the Section 3 9 6

G to e page 16 related to the proposed corporations authority to arrange for interconnection facilities where it refers only to the nonprofit private agencies and organizations. And. We simply suggest the deletion of the word non-profit in that section for the simple reason that might be construed to negate the provisions of 3 9 6 8. Insofar as it's contemplated that the corporation is to be in a position to arrange for interconnection services from the United States common carriers that we strongly believe the corporation should be able to do that. Inclusion may I again thank the committee for this opportunity to present our views. Well I want to say again I want to thank you all for coming at the invitation of the committee. And you've rendered a service and as I said before that is the

language needs a little polishing up was a reference to that section and I think that we can get our heads together and make a meaningful result. I want to thank you again for coming here. I hope I didn't disturb you in anything I said. I didn't mean it in any way of criticism. But. We do have problems we have problems. Thank you very much Mr. Hilborn. The next witnesses were all the people Bernie vice president of the Western Union Telegraph Company just heard from Mr. Cain on my car and vice president of American telephone. Mr. Hilburn is taking his seat from the witness stand you may proceed Mr. HILL. First of all let me say that we are very pleased and happy to have you here. We thank you for accepting our invitation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The general cause of nonprofit educational television broadcasting has been substantially advance since your hearings of last August. Major milestones in this connection included first the January 23rd 1967 report by the Carnegie Commission on educational television. Second of February 28 1967 congressional message by President Johnson 3rd of March 2nd 1967 introduction by Senator Magnuson of Senate bill 11:16 D which is the principal subject of these hearings and forth the April 3rd filings by the Ford Foundation Comsat and numerous other interested parties in FCC domestic satellite inquiry docket number 1 6 4 9 5. The cumulative effect of these actions has been to attract attention to the constructive role at a domestic satellite

service can render in practically and economically meeting the needs of the American public. Your hearings have clearly indicated there are legal technical. And policy questions which require decisions by our government before this service can be established. Some of these matters will take time to resolve. However today we will suggest a new plan which could permit early achievement of some of the vitally needed near-term domestic communications satellite service benefits without foreclosing any of the later actions which might be required after the final evolvement of government policy in this complex area first in developing our position in this matter. We must strongly disagree with the Ford Foundation's recommendation to propose to postpone the authorisation of any domestic satellite service for one year. In recent filings with the FCC and in subsequent public statements the

foundation has indicated that this delay would be in the public interest for the following reasons. A That this additional time should be spent to study the potential benefits of satellite communications to the broadcasters educational public and commercial. Be that any prompt action on the part of the United States in establishing domestic service might prejudice this country's position in certain future international negotiations. See that the pending merger legislation will pave the way for certain consolidation among the carriers and that any decision in advance of this restructuring of the industry might prejudice its outcome. We take issue with all of these arguments. First further study is not required to recognize that substantial benefits will accrue to all broadcasters by the early application of satellite technology to domestic communications. All of the many

studies which have been carried on to date have clearly indicated that there are large benefits to be obtained. Therefore we question why our citizens should lose a year's time in the attainment of these benefits while a planner is further refine and consider this question. Secondly. A one year postponement in the authorization of any domestic service will not be sufficient to avoid complications in our international negotiations. The August 20th 1964 agreement establishing interim arrangements for the global commercial communications satellite system is not to be reopened until 1969. If we postpone the initiation of action leading to domestic service tests until the completion of these negotiations with the members of the international consortium we will be delaying the inauguration of our vitally needed services by not one but at least two or three years. Thirdly the merger legislation has not yet been introduced. It may or may not be presented to this session of Congress.

If it is introduced there is no assurance that this will be reported out of committee or passed by the Congress. It does not seem that an important domestic requirement should be postponed because of the possible effects of a bill which has not yet been started through the legislative process. This becomes doubly true in light of the fact that the proposed legislation is permissive and that an actual merger might never occur even if the bill were to be passed. In short we believe that the country should proceed without further delay to inaugurate limited service. The Ford Foundation has proposed that in an initial period of experimental operation might be carried out by NASA. However this would require additional congressional authorization and appropriations particularly in as much as the space agency does not have any domestic stations except at Rosmah North Carolina and Mojave California. This morning Mr. Kerik described comsats offer to furnish an experimental domestic

satellite and build two domestic stations one on each coast as well as a number of small receive only installations which will be placed at various locations in the western part of the United States. We do not feel that Comsat should be permitted to carry out this proposal as the establishment of these facilities might well prejudice the outcome of many of the pending policy issues. It is our belief that a shared or multiple service satellite will ultimately be more practical to operate as well as more economical than a proliferation of dedicated systems. If this is the national decision then Comsat would be the logical entity to provide the space segment of such a common service. However we feel that the domestic erste station complex should be owned and operated by the common carriers whether they are permitted to own their own satellites or work into a Comsat shared user system.

Mr. Chairman on November 7th 1966 Western Union filed a series of applications with the FCC for construction permits for a network of regionally located earth stations subsequently on January 5th 1967 these were returned to us without prejudice by the commission pending the resolution of the policy questions raised in Dockett 1 6 4 9 5. It is significant to note that these filings represent not just a general description of a plan but were in fact the result of a very substantial engineering effort. We detail the design of the stations and selected the specific sites auction options have been taken to secure five out of six of these sites and negotiations are well along for the last location. Interference studies have been made for each location to ensure that our stations could be

placed in service. Without conflicting with other previously licensed services. It would take Comsat NASA the Ford Foundation or other any other entity that might be authorized to proceed with a national domestic service. At least six months and probably closer to a year to reach the same point of readiness for a similar number of regionally located stations capable of originating as well as receiving public television network programmes. Also it should be noted that these six stations have the advantage of being geographically situated where they will be required for multiple access message and data service Hansson investment in these stations would be economically justifiable. Whenever regular domestic satellite communications are inaugurated no matter what the ultimate decision might be regarding television program distribution. If the FCC were willing at this time to take favorable action on our previously submitted

applications. We would make these facilities available for an initial demonstration period without charge to public television. This offer assumes that for the duration of this domestic test the space segment would be provided by having NASA. Turned over to Western Union the communications transponders in selected spacecraft. In the application technology or series of satellites. The GPS has been authorized and funded by the Congress for the purpose of investigating and flight testing technology that is common to a number of satellite applications. The wideband transponders which are carried aboard the current series of satellites operate in the frequencies presently assigned to commercial satellite services. These transponders should continue to operate and therefore could be relied upon to give dependable service for relatively long periods beyond the initial experimentation for which NASA

will have constructed and flown the satellites. The concept of using satellites and operational service beyond the initial research and development period is already well established after demonstrating the feasibility of communications via synchronous satellite. NASA turned over operational control of Cincom to an Cincom three to the Department of Defense in order that they might be used experimentally in advance of the availability of the military satellite system. Similarly after the initial NASA experiments were completed the Tyros satellites routinely took hundreds of thousands of cloud cover photographs for the Weather Bureau. The automatic picture taking or AAPT TV system aboard ESA two permitted individuals around the world to directly interrogate and instantaneously receive local cloud cover pictures with privately owned ground receiving equipment we recognize that the

cited examples were single purpose satellites and that the series are multi-purpose and carry a number of payloads. Thus in this case a coordinated effort would have to be developed between Western Union and NASA. So that the spacecraft could be controlled in such a way as to continue to serve the NASA scientific experimenters in areas other than communications while a transponder capacity is being utilized by Western Union. However we've been studying this matter for several months and we believe that this is both technically and operationally feasible assuming that this can be worked out. The space segment for this period of initial domestic experimental operation would be provided without any additional expense to NASA or the government. The modifications necessary to permit our multiple access message and data earth stations to operate with the ABs are minimal and easily accomplished. I believe that this system could be placed into service sooner than any other proposal which has yet

been offered. Also it would permit greater program flexibility as all sites would be capable of originating programs as well as receiving them. This plan would provide a single network channel of either color or monochrome TV programs for use during the demonstration period by public television. The inner city transmission cost to the public television broadcasters on this network would be limited to only the common carriers tariff for whatever short haul facilities are required to get the signals to and from our nearest Air Station. We would also be Wehling for the duration of this demonstration to interconnect the satellite network with private microwave systems devoted to public television broadcasting and authorized by the FCC for public television service. In exchange for the use of the transponder capability which in turn makes

possible that TV channel for public television news Western Union would propose to use the additional capacity of the transponders in limited service to help meet our inner city transmission requirements for message and data traffic. Western Union today owns over 900000 circuit miles of power line and cable facilities. In addition we own and operate three and a half million channel miles of inner city microwave beam circuits. In spite of this extensive set of facilities it is necessary for us to annually contract for over 12 million dollars of additional intercity facilities from other common carriers. The proposed use of the satellite transponder capability coupled with our previously Filer's stations would permit us to make some reduction in the amount of circuitry which we now lease from other carriers. In addition the circuit capacity

available in the abs. Beyond that required for the nationwide public television network would permit us to greatly increase our flexibility in emergency restore all actions at such time as existing terrestrial services developed trouble. These uses we feel would compensate us for the free service we would be offering to the public television broadcasters should the ultimate national decisions result in someone else having this franchise and we were not permitted to continue operating these stations even in multiple access message and data service. We would transfer them to whatever entity had been given this authority in this eventuality we would contract for our transmission facilities between these locations from the new operator of the station. Just as there is a precedent for NASA turning over satellites for a follow on use thats in the national interest. There is a precedent for the transfer over stations.

The Andover main station is a good case in point. In summary we would agree with you Mr. Chairman that it's vital that this country proceed without further delay to establish an experimental program of public television a domestic communications satellite system can clearly provide a vital part to implementing such a service. Western Union is ready and willing to assist in this pilot demonstration. And if accomplished in the way I have outlined. Service could be provided promptly without additional governmental investment and without subsidization by other activities. Further it would result in getting into place 6 regionally located medium capacity or stations which will be needed in any case to meet our intercity message and data transmission requirements beyond recommending consideration of this general proposal. We have two specific comments with regard to the detail language of Title 2 of the proposed bill. First.

Section 396 subparagraph C makes provision for a board of 15 members for the Corporation for Public Television. These members are to be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate as presently stated. These appointees are to be citizens eminent in such fields is education cultural and civic affairs and the arts including radio and television. We suggest that the final language of the bill be amended to include the domestic common carriers as a source of appropriate background for board membership. If as everyone feels satellite communications are going to play a vital role in the development of the new corporation and its continued operation then it would appear wise to include at least one board member with the expertise necessary to provide that body with technical perspective. When they are faced with decisions relating to telecommunication services whether these be by satellite or conventional means.

Second May I interrupt you at this. Certainly Mr. Chairman you only have about another minute and a half. The piece of load going on and I don't want to cut you short. And we recessed for about 10 minutes and I'll be back. Senator Pastorius now left the room to go to the floor of the United States Senate. This is about a one block walk yield. Of course take the Senate subway which runs onto the ground with this building to the Capitol across the street. The Senate is voting on the Outer Space Treaty that would ban the use of military weapons in outer space and hopefully would also be ratified by the Soviet Union later today. About a half an hour from now the Senate will hold a procedural vote. Designed to. Reach a compromise on a filibuster which has been going on for nearly a week now. Concern with the investment tax credit bill. Senator Russell Long of Louisiana was

upset when a member of the Senate tagged a rider onto that bill which would repeal his bill which is balanced during the last Congress and that bill which passed last year would allocate $1 of everybody's income tax money for the financing of presidential campaign funds. This was repealed about a week ago. And so Senator Long has taken a part in a filibuster now in an effort to have his bill which passed him was killed. Now riprap whether this happens or not should be determined this afternoon Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana the Democratic leader has offered a compromise designed to end this problem. And this is one reason that Senator Brown story has said earlier today this hearing would have to either recess or be cut short. It will just recess for 10 minutes. He is now voting on the Outer Space Treaty two votes to be held on the floor today. Testimony you're hearing at this

moment is