Public Television Hearings

General McCormick chairman of the communications satellite corporation. I'm not making his way to the witness stand he said. She just heard SENATOR PASTORE A has called a brief recess to allow for the transfer of the witnesses. General O'Connell brought five aides with him in the hearing room as occurred the first week of their hearings. It was very crowded and he was man I was sitting at a large table to the center of the room television cameras around the sides of where we are all so there are six groups of witnesses scheduled to appear during this first day of the second session. You heard General O'Connell next will be General McCormick of Comsat Following him will be Joseph P. sharp president of the communications satellite corporation. Then Kenneth McKay vice president for engineering of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Next to appear probably this afternoon will be Earl de Hilburn vice president and special assistant to the president of the Western Union. Later on today Lester Markel will appear he is the

associate editor of The New York Times a total of 32 witnesses are scheduled to appear during the second week of the hearings. There is a possibility that Friday's session will be cut short that an afternoon meeting will not be held. This is because a joint session of Congress has been called as members of the Senate and House meet together to hear General William Westmoreland commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam General Westmoreland will address the joint session Friday at 12:30. It is almost certain that an afternoon hearing of this committee will at least be suspended long enough for the members to attend that joint session. Only three members of the commerce subcommittee are in attendance today and only one of those three is an actual member of this subcommittee. Sen. John O pastoring of Rhode Island the subcommittee chairman whom you've heard often this morning here is Warren G Magnuson of Washington state. He is chairman of the full Senate Commerce Committee and he is author

of the bill which is now being considered. He was also author of the original laid to educational television act of 62. Third member of the Senate attending today's subcommittee hearing is Senator Frank J Laci of Ohio is a member of the full committee. Also we would point out that three areas of major concern. Been pointed out during this morning's testimony one of them one which occurred quite frequently during the first week of hearings was the involvement of communication satellites in the various possibilities open for the use of satellite communications by educational broadcasters. This appears to be an area which will only grow in problem to this Senate committee trying to smooth out differences. We should hear some very good expert testimony on that problem in a few moments when General McCormack presents Comsat side of the question

aside which is widely different from that of the Ford Foundation which would ask that educational broadcasters launch their own satellites A second area of concern expressed by members of the Senate as Gen. O'Connell testified moments ago. Is the possibility of program production involvement on the part of the proposed public television corporation senators appear very concerned that this proposed corporation not engage itself in actual production but rather issued grants and contracts for production. This goes back to the fears expressed during the first week of hearings. There's a propaganda potential on the part of a national government financed educational Broadcasting System. The third area of concern which we have noted this morning is the possible need to simplify the existing legislation or probable or the possibility that this bill might be laid on the table until all of the differences which have been brought out are resolved. Sen. Magnussen as you heard a moment ago

suggested that the original educational television act be extended until this bill can be smoothed down if this occurred many major aspects would be delayed. One of them would force the actors of educational radio educational radio is not a part of the original federal aid to educational television act. And this of course would completely eliminate any possibility of federal aid for educational radio or other areas of this new Senate bill or the one we just mentioned of course would be the new extension of the program for radio. The other would finance this nonprofit corporation to assist program operations and probably program production. This is also a new aspect. The third and still another new aspect would authorize a study of instructional television and its relationship to educational television. If the bill were delayed. These two areas of course would also be

delayed what we would then have would just be another federal financial grant for Educational Television. Senator Magnus and made a great point of that few moments ago indicating that he wants this bill to be perfectly written before it is reported out. SENATOR PASTORE a in and out of humor said he'd get the bill to the Senate and Magnussen by Mother's Day. Mother's day is May 14th this may be a real hint that the bill would be reported out of this subcommittee by the middle of next month. This would only be about three weeks away. We might point out the procedures that that will have to be overcome before this bill becomes law if in fact it does become law. The subcommittee which is holding these hearings here today in Washington will review the testimony which has been given and will be given by the many witnesses. They will then possibly draw up amendments to the legislation or accept it as it was drafted by the White House. Whatever they do they will then bring forth the bill and deliver it to the full

Commerce Committee of which they are only a part of that committee generally takes the word of the subcommittee and then reports it to the floor of the Senate by reporting this means they say OK we're through with it it's time for you to consider it now here's our recommendation. They then presented a lengthy report in which they reviewed the testimony and indicate their feelings about the legislation. Judging from the remarks made by the Senator as you have participated in these hearings all of that comment would be my wearable with perhaps a few exceptions naturally what we what it appears will happen at this point is that the subcommittee will make its decision on the bill and report it handed over to the full committee and they will just pass it on out of the Senate floor. But then the process has to be repeated in the House of Representatives. This is only the first hurdle to be passed by this bill it must then go through more hearings on the House side of the Capitol and a subcommittee over there very similar to this committee subcommittee will hold

hearings. Maybe many of the same witnesses will appear and give more testimony. They will then report the bill to their full committee. Which in turn will report it to the House of Representatives. We point out that in passing both houses there is opportunity for the bill to be amended by any member of the House or Senate. It's a rarity that a piece of legislation such as this comes out of the House or Senate in its original form there generally are always some minor differences. This then would mean the bill would go to a conference committee at which members of the House and Senate would get together and decide what's the best version to suit both desires then the bill could be passed. This is a very lengthy process as you can well imagine. And although Senator Basse story indicates the bill may be reported to the committee by the middle of May. That in no way implies it will go to the Senate floor. By that time as matter of fact that would be

almost an uncertainty. Senator bass Dorrie has said he'd like the bill to be passed this session of Congress this session of Congress runs for about a year so there's no telling when during that year the bill might be voted on. We have six witnesses to appear today as we've told you here at the subcommittee hearing the basics more tomorrow in a very impressive list tomorrow the president of CBS Dr. Frank Stanton will address the hearing. President of NBC Julian Goodman the drama's Gilda council member Dori Sheri we hear representative of the ABC television and radio network will also appear. President of the National Association of Broadcasters and FCC Commissioner Robert E. Lee that's on tap for tomorrow. Senator Pastorius now returning to the room along with Senator Warren Magnuson as now taking his city ready to resume the hearings here. All of the witnesses now assume their

seats and the gavel this fall. Get on the comic You may now proceed. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Delighted to be here of course. With me is Dr. Cherri Carr president well-known to the committee. I would like also to introduce Mr. David Acheson who following retirement Mr. Allen troop has taken the post of General Counsel that comes at a happy occasion from our point of view. My prepared statement was chairman will cover our comments on the bill being considered with a subcommittee S11 16. And we'll touch on some of the implications of satellite technology for noncommercial television. If a subcommittee wishes Dr. Cherry is prepared to explain very briefly. A

proposal the Comsat has recently submitted to the Federal Communications Commission a proposal which we think will advance the interests of noncommercial television and other forms of satellite communications of the same in everyone in this room here the general. And I say they can get close. Get the microphone up closer. That's fine. And it goes without saying we're both prepared to answer any questions you may have. To get to the point quickly the concept strongly supports the major purposes of your proposed television act. One hundred sixty seven. That is s 11 60. We are pleased to see noncommercial broadcasting getting the recognition it has gained in recent months. We are in full accord with the proposed findings and declaration of policy in the bill. The public is deeply indebted to several streams of effort that have converged in this hearing room. The well known concern of this committee with the needs of noncommercial broadcasting. The public attention that the Ford

Foundation is focused on the problem lead definitive work of the Carnegie Commission culminating in its report on public television. And the leadership of the president in that study and in this legislative proposal. Comsat very much wants to see noncommercial broadcasting strengthened and we regard this bill as a very promising start. We wish to make a few comments on the build it naturally occurred to a company in the transmission business as Comsat is. One. We fully support the proposal to create a nonprofit corporation for public television dedicated to strengthening program development interconnection and the independence of local stations too. We favor the provision of title to page 17 which would remove any legal obstacle to the rendering of interconnection free or at preparation prices for noncommercial broadcasting. Under the supervision of the Federal Communications Commission of course three there is an important matter of clarification in

connection. With the paragraph on page 16 of the bill paragraph g to each of section 3 9 6. That paragraph would authorize the Corporation for Public Television to make arrangements with appropriate public or nonprofit private agencies organizations or institution for interconnection facilities for transmission of programs in light of the purposes of the bill. We had thought that the provision was not intended to limit to gos categories the entities which might perform interconnection services. But we note that the Forte Foundation in its April 3rd filing with the FCC has stated that this paragraph of the bill not only would authorize their proposed broadcasters nonprofit Satellite Corporation to provide necessary satellite interconnection for public TV but by the same stroke would permanently preclude Comsat. We honestly believe that neither the 1962 satellite act nor any other law under this bill would justify either of those viewers. The disagreement is a fundamental one and crucial to the future in the

statutory mission of Comsat. We had our exit paragraph e of the bill should not be left open to the argument that it prejudge is this major disagreement to the prejudice of comsats future. It is worth recalling that satellite Act imposes on comes at many exacting controls to safeguard the public interest which Congress put in the hands of the president the secretary of state and the Federal Communications Commission. We would assume that Congress would not intend in a subordinate clause of this bill to open up domestic satellite service to additional entities which would not be bound with the safeguards to the public interest that are present in the satellite act for we have one further comment on paragraph 18. As Dr. Killian in his testimony before this committee noted it seems to deprive the Corporation for Public television of any authority to deal directly with the carriers who would normally provide interconnection facilities and limits a corporation to dealing through an intermediary organization. We think that some entity should

have authority in the case of conflicting demands to act as a clearing house to decide on what programs are transmitted over which facilities and at what hours. Though there would not be conflicting demands in many cases. With low cost or free channels offered for noncommercial programs the chance of completing demands for transmission may be increased. Certainly Comsat would not want the job of choosing between competing requirements for times and programs of different stations network state educational systems and the like. One would naturally look to a nonprofit body created to serve the public requirements responsible to a board of directors who are free from any parochial interest and are themselves pledged to serve the public interest. As Dr. Killian noted the Corporation for Public television meets those requirements but it appears to be hobbled from performing effective interconnections service by paragraph. Unequivocally satellite technology in general. And Comsat in particular. Certainly we like to believe I can do a great deal for public television. In the last few

years even in the last two or three. We have begun to see what the synchronous satellite can do by way of reliability by way of capacity by way of economy for all of the forms of communications that will be needed for public educational and instructional systems. That is very young. Like the art it is charged by the Congress to foster. We're a very small organization tiny in the communications industry. Which incidentally is a significant indicator of the economy's inherent in satellites. Yet even at this early stage our satellite coverage has been extended to the borders of the Indian Ocean both eastward and westward from the United States. These satellites can carry television computer and data traffic document and photo reproduction and voice traffic all of very high quality at a very low cost. Interspersed one remark I'm sure will be of interest to you Mr. Chairman. This morning's broadcast which you referred to and distributed all over the United States also went on the Pacific satellite in the Brewster station and went to Japan. It may well have the

largest audience that has ever viewing a television program. In any case educational instructive as it get on the other satellite will explain that what if it was spread out over land lines in this country microwaves and cables to everywhere including the state of Washington and piped across to the Hydra station and put on the Pacific satellite. Educational instructional and public broadcasting will require all of these forms of traffic not merely television alone. This present satellite capability is only the beginning. The satellites with that will be put in service a few years hence will have a degree of transmitting power directional capability circuit capacity and economy that may be many multiples of those properties of the present satellites. We think it important that those advances in satellite communications be brought on as rapidly as possible that they serve as many users as possible and that they benefit all of the applications of satellite communications including public television. We are

convinced that these advantages these advances must be supported by as they must serve the entire market for satellite communications voice traffic data traffic television and radio traffic. Even more to a particular point of these hearings we are convinced that a coordinated multi use system can meet the national broadcast transmission requirements at lower cost and can a separate broadcast system. The cost differential may be small at first but it will greatly increase as a non-broadcast use grows and assumes a larger proportion of the fixed cost. For these reasons Mr. Chairman we deeply believe that the future of satellite services and public television is inseparably linked to the future of satellite communications as a whole. The advances that are possible will be enhanced if satellite communications can develop as a unified domestic system. Such advances will be retarded if domestic satellite service is subdivided among particular uses. This is a most important reason why we have been critical

of any proposal to create separate satellite systems for different uses or markets. We cannot see how it can hasten the development of domestic satellite communications or encourage high volume traffic. If we begin by fragmenting the base upon which domestic satellite service must rest in order to demonstrate our belief in the soundness of a unified multi service system. Comsat has proposed to the FCC that we be authorized to conduct a pilot demonstration in domestic satellite communications. This demonstration model would have a TV broadcast capability which would carry public television as well as commercial television. It would be a multi service demonstration since it would also carry voice and data traffic. All services being provided on a small but illustrative scale. We hope that we will be permitted to take proper steps towards setting up a demonstration model. In conclusion we believe a television of maximum quality and coverage. We

think that satellites will provide a means for better more extensive and more economical service. Congress we believe gave us a charter to take the leadership in this field and to assure that the benefits of satellite technology will flow to all. And we stand ready to do our part to make the enormous potential of noncommercial television a present reality. This concludes my remarks Mr. Chairman. It is your wish from the committee whether you would like to have Dr. Cherri comment a bit on our Welzel an example of our committee has raised a question and I'd like to submit it deal. On page three and I'm quoting you you say but we note that the Ford Foundation and its April 3 filing that the FCC has stated that this paragraph of the bill not only would authorize their proposed broadcasters nonprofit Satellite Corporation to provide necessary satellite interconnection for public TV but by the same stroke and I think this of course is what disturbs you would permanently preclude Comsat. An

example tells me that he's familiar with the filings of the Ford Foundation and he can't find this assertion. It is possible Mr. Chairman that. That in our concern for these particular words we have drawn. A conclusion that is too sweeping. I would only say and in the sense of overreaching on a point like that that we read the words themselves to be rather sweeping. This does not mean that we have an insoluble difficulty with the Ford Foundation. I don't think this only has to do with some words which lie formally before the FCC and we thought we could not leave unchallenged on the record last because we have already asked a question three or four times and I think we have developed an historical basis that would preclude that apprehension. Well I mean it's very difficult in Amistad just to know this maybe better than I will to begin the draw language to protect you against the imaginary. I mean we could get in the trouble.

We could buy a lot more than we bargained for and I think we ought to make that abundantly clear in the history and possibly in the report that it doesn't mean this. And I think that that would suffice. But on the other hand we'll keep the question open to status and can discuss it with Mr. example. Now coming back to page 16 of the bill you have to belay. Served. One part of the bill it seems to disturb us have S.E.. Where are grades two arranged by Grant or contract with appropriate public or nonprofit private agencies organizations or institutions for interconnection facilities suitable for distribution and transmission of educational television or radio programmes to noncommercial educational broadcast stations. Now you've raised an objection to that. I understand that the reason for writing this in was to make sure. That this corporation would not get into one operational function.

And that's the reason why we as a language and nonprofit private agencies organizations or institutions. Now will you please elaborate a little bit on what your fear is with connection in connection with this paragraph. Well if the result of the law Mr. Chairman were among other things. To establish. A buffer operating organization between the Corporation for Public Television and the carriers capable of supplying interconnection today via land link someday by satellite. If a secondary organization here is fully empowered to deal with the carriers the established carriers. Particular. Then. I think we couldn't have any concern. The bill as it stood and as we read it and we can only. We can only apologize for. Creating more heat than light. If our reading was wrong. Not specifically providing for the for the organization that could deal

with the commercial carriers. I. Left it open to the interpretation which we thought was going on here in this whole bill you say we are in the realm of education. And it's precious to our concept that education should be free from all sorts of governmental interference that has been emphasized and reemphasized here. And none of us know how that none of us want governmental interference in the educational process. And I think that we have written some provisions in this bill which will give you that safeguard But you come back to the argument that is constantly been made and very well so. By at my distinguished colleague from Indiana. That as long as you control the purse string of course you can control the program. At least you can veto the program if you don't like it. However there seems hardly to be an answer for that because if your government is going to be in it somehow the government the Congress is going to and says it is going to know where the money is going I don't think they're going to write the programs but they

might be concerned at some point about what kind of programs are you putting over the air what your cause might. Trespass upon the sensitivities of the educational community. So the Killian commission. In order to make sure of course invented this idea of having the manufacturers excise tax whereby they would not be compelled to come annually before the appropriation committees of the Congress asking for the money and having to answer questions as to programming I mean that was their idea. Now. The point here is that in order to promote this freedom and in order to unshackle you see this whole institution from an indifference they felt that this corporation should not engage in any operational function. And in order to carry out they would have gone too far in carrying out their concept in order to carry out that concept. They've written in this subsection E..

Now maybe does gives the apprehensive the protection and the guarantee that they want. Personally I'm not too fearful of it all but that's the reason why I asked you the question. I can't see how Section E. Disturbs Comsat because whether you get your contract directly from the corporation or you get it from a non profit intermediary. Why does that make any difference to you. As I said in my prepared statement chairman the next list option was based directly on the same the same line of thinking. It was only the actual words of the legal document presented to the FCC. But we just felt obliged to. Mike make it clear on the record that. This would be in our reading of their language. This would just put Tom said out of the picture and we we didn't. Well that's that's the reason why in the introductory remarks that I made and I would hope it would get

i heads together and get this straightened out because I think with belaboring it a little bit I think we are and I think we're making it a bone of contention and had not to be. I don't think it ought to stand in our way. But I want to compliment you for your presentation here today. And I think you've done excellent job. Center last year. Yes I have a question I'd like to get the shuttle or the language in this is some paragraph. That is it reads The corporation is authorized for pages. Well I prefix the corporation is authorized Now page 69. To arrange by grant your contract with the appropriate public or non private agency. What does your legal advisor tell you. Is the definition of a public agency. I thought to ask him I take it for granted that a governmental agency at the national state or local

level. That is the interpretation which you put on. Yesterday and it's what that interpretation that you conclude. That the arrangement must be made. Through any governmental agency or a nonprofit private agency. Yes or comms that is a property. Corporation and does not fall within the definition of either a public or eight nonprofit private agency. I may have led you astray with one of Byron marks or senator last night. I certainly don't want to do so. As we originally read this we did not read this as restricting the Corporation for Public Television to dealing only with this sort of an agency. If for example a corporation for public television were to have the authority to make contracts as well as grants and to

secure interconnection transmission services by whatever means then. We had said perfectly obviously as general O'Connell says here when you start today you start with the existing land lines and they're certainly in profit making hands. How do you conclude that com stat is eliminated from the right to sue. To be to make arrangements by Grant or contract with the corporation. I'm almost embarrassed Senator Laotians a large and in seeming to argue the point I now give you my deepest despair it's not my ambition here. However it is not our reading of the language section it was the specific language of the Ford Foundation's April 3rd filing which ended of the rather ringing sentence that there be an ss to. Would be eligible to work with the Corporation for Public Television. Private carriers would not.

Like to actually call the state and some more foundation in their filing. And I'll read from your internet connection to find things like wait another day and see the requisite qualifications. It would be the logical source of the connection for the Corporation for Public television commercial common carriers are not public. Why not profit under the provisions of the bill. Well that is exactly what I said. And that is the basis for our concern. But I would reassure I would repeat. The assurance I was trying to give earlier. We thought we could not let this one pass. But I personally would have every confidence that we could work this out to include the agreement of forethought as. Well that that language needs to be polished up. That's reason why I think we want to get our heads together and get this a problem. The CHAIRMAN.

Are we definitely aiming to preclude a grand step from now. Now you see what's happening here. Come set is a carrier. Air just carries. In other words they receive this signal and they transmit this NG. Now all that this section means is that the corporation could not go directly to them to say send this all over the country. It would have to go to an intermediary which would want to go. Why do we aim to do that in order to keep this corporation away from an operational function. And that's the reason why I said that I think is being a little bit all was suppressed and they were going to polish that up. I don't think anyone wants this corporation to get into the business of making programs. They want them to contract these programs. In other words we don't want this corporation as I understand it to go where go out and begin the song let's say a symphony like the New York is symphonic

orchestra or R n B C and begin to produce their own shows and then begin to send them out to the educational institutions or the educational broadcasting stations. All that they can do they can contract for production. And the reason for this is in order to keep this freedom and its independence well. Did I miss May I put this question to any one of the three with a view there. If our objective is not to allow this newly formed corporation to get into actual operation. How do they get into the operation. If instead of. Contracting through an intermediary they contract directly with comms. How does contracting with an intermediary. You know how does contracting directly with com stat put it into the operational

business. Not a bit in so far as interconnection facilities are concerned interconnection facilities here are defined to mean the communications satellite systems microwave facilities and so on. As But let's face it this whole. Performance Today is going all the television. And I correct educational television you see all these cameras here. And this is any TV. It's a nonprofit organization. Now if the corporation undertook to do today what they're doing you'd put these people out of business would you. If they went directly to the concept to put these people out of business. And I guess that's what this bill intends to do not to crush these people to recognize the fact that they have rendered yeoman service and I guess that's the reason for it. In all probability that may be the politics behind it I don't know. But I certainly don't find any fault with it I think the whole process has to be polished up. In other words

we're here to help but not to hurt. Senator Dodd put just one postscript to make sure we have not been misunderstood on one point. He has no desire whatever to become involved in this under the supervision of the Federal Communications Commission and so on in any way other than a transmitter of communications. Whoever is an authorized user of our services can bring signals to the earth stations where they're transmitted to the satellite. Is is a welcome customer. Any tea at the moment is a customer of AT&T on these landline in eighty two years from now perhaps still through AT&T might be indirectly a customer of comms at over the satellite. I just wanted to make as sure as I possibly could that nothing in our remarks is intended in the slightest to suggest that Comsat should go in the broadcasting business and nonprofit profit commercial non commercial or any other way.

While I'll admit we've raised a very very sensitive problem and I think it has to be straightened out and I think we can do it like that those are those are they fair is in the audience behind it and I do not construe what you said to be in opposition to the bill you're giving and not at all in which you want us to explore because you believe it is wrong. But and I welcome whatever suggestions you have to make so as to ensure that when the bill finally comes out it will be in the best shape that we can possibly. Send it from India. All I can say I'm delighted to see these people again I want to graduate Comsat for the fine job they're doing and. I think it's very important they continue to do so and I hope they continue to maintain their independence and. Do what they're doing today to try to make sure that we don't get in some areas which are creating confusion. I want to compliment the chairman for trying to bring some clarity to this situation.

So the events are OK but the question is now I've got to Kyra CULE is it going to be interested I might just take about two minutes to indicate the scope of the program that concept has proposed. To provide. A demonstration workshop. What actually can be done domestically via communication satellites. You. Know. We got a pilot program that could be implemented we believe in two years time. In other words in two years time we could have a significant interconnection facility in bean which would be used not only for educational television but also for commercial television and as well as for very common carrier services telephone message services All right the satellite that may have in mind we think could be available in 69 as a matter of fact the limitation is probably not in the satellite but

in the ground the satellite would have to pay below the for 12 television Carol or twenty one Power Point to Point messages channel or ninety six hundred mobile point message channels or any combination thereof. So a single satellite of this type that we believe that the imposition in two years can do a most significant job. Where would you say the satellite would have to be positioned the satellite would be positioned over the waiter and the longitude bisecting the United States would that require an international agreement. There would have to be international coordination with respect to the frequencies to be used and to the position where the satellite was like you think you could get that agreement I don't think there would be any difficulty in making the appropriate array. What that take at commercial and noncommercial as well. Yes it would. Now we have proposed that in this pilot program we would make one channel one television channel available for Educational Television at no cost.

To provide I say that again say that again and I think that needs repeating. We propose that comes that would completely fund this program there would be no government funds of any type require we would provide the satellite we would provide the ground station network and we would make one station available to educational television at no cost. Tack one on one camera on stage one television channel that would have to be subject to this edition of the FCC that would of course have to be subject to the FCC and the bill I think makes adequate provision for the offering of such free services subject to approval of the Federal Communications Commission. Now one of the reasons that we think urgency of the thing is when you wait a minute Doc or the attorneys can I. It's a learning chance that you could provide too. I think I can elaborate on just the Mac are in just a minute. I mean. Now the reason that we think the urgency of the use of the F is really this chart here which shows the channel requirements over the next 10 to

15 years. These are requirements that we have put together through consultation with educational people with commercial television networks with the common carriers 80 Western Union and so on and I think they represent a very sharp increase in the demand for services of all types. We think that satellites for the most economical means for long distance communications and hence the urgency in getting some sort of a capability into being domestically as soon as possible. We think our proposal is a step in. Direction now the specific pilot program that we have contemplated is as follows a single satellite with a capability that I have indicated up to 12 television channels and originally with a ground network. Of some 30 receiving stations located in the civic and Mountain time zone. The reason that we have selected these two time zones is that the advantages of communication satellites are optimized here the distances are the

largest and the terrestrial facilities in existence are at a minimum so that the combination of a large this is large distances and sparse facilities makes this an optimum testing ground. The there would be a major transmitter in the Los Angeles area and a major transmitter in the New York area and some 30 receiving stations and our proposal would include then the possibility that each commercial network could have up to three channels in each of the two time zones. Our offer of a free television channel to educational television is for one in each of the two time zones. We think that such a system. Could be further elaborated to include a perhaps two or more modest sized transmitters we suggested a 40 to 1 transformable to meet some of the requirements of Western Union for message traffic for alternate voice data traffic.

While the system as we have laid it out here what then you see you have a capability for six commercial television channels for two educational television channels or 60 200 message channels. We think this would be a significant and important increment to existing communications capabilities. We think it would provide the only true test bed where the final answer is on the real requirements of educational instructional television can be determined because only through using the system and testing it finding out what it can do what its limitations may be. Can we make the final determinations as to the type of system that can best meet the requirements. So our message I guess is that it is one of urgency. We're prepared to move ahead using corporation funds to have such a limited pilot program in being in two years and to make those facilities available not only to the commercial networks and to the common carriers but also to provide this very important test bed for Educational Television.

How much thought has been given a study been given to this plan that you've just Gilla straighted. We have we have done a considerable study of this over I would say in the better part of the last two years it has gradually merged. We have discussed. Plan. With the carriers we have discussed the plans and creational people commercial networks and we think that we have incorporated as fast as we know how. The critical requirements so we think it is a system that is not only capable of being an important demonstration tool but actually one that can do a very important commercial job in the timeframe in question. Which is very. Well the language of this bill as you interpret it. To be. Prevent our peroration from entering directly into a relationship with you carrying into effect what you

just write. We do not read it that way and send it to lush and I again expressed my. My my personal belief that we can work out with those who would interpret differently change a word or two that would make to make sure that John the question does the language. In the bill not preclude your time step from entering into a direct relationship with the newly formed corporation. We thank you does not does it. Now then your ear of the belief that something can be worked out that will be acceptable to Comstock. Yes or. No. Although on a on a call on a different issue entirely and I I don't mean to raise raises here I'm not an expert on it but just to make sure we don't leave something unsaid as I read Dr Kim's testimony when he was up here he did feel in behalf of the general study of the Carnegie Corporation for really a different set of reasons that this was

restrictive. Well is it your belief or isn't it that if the newly formed corporation has to work through an intermediary to get this type of service the language in the language ought to be rewritten. To facilitate the goals which you have in mind. And moreover Senator we not only agree with we think it's very easy. We think there is another possible difficulty. Well let let Mr. Clare I know it's likely you've been answered that question I think. All right final question but not with a system of this type in being we are proposing to offer to set aside two channels at no cost for Educational Television. Now it could well be that the demands for these two channels would exceed the capacity. There is going to have to be somebody that is going to make a determination as to how those two channels are to be utilized in the event that the demand exceeds the capacity.

We can think of. What is your suggestion then about. The identity of the agency that should resolve that issue if it gets into disrepute. We think it would be not be unreasonable that in that in an issue of that type of the Corporation for Public Television set up with the safeguards with which it is to be set up would be a very likely body to make those kinds of determination. That as you suggest the establishment of another corporation although the Corporation for Public Television in case of conflicts of this type might act as a clearing house. And you suggested that language be put in the bill that you in substance what you just said and it might be helpful but I think we leave it up to the wisdom of the committee. It needs to be clarified let me ask you this now. Getting down to this point of chance. What if the demands do increase. I think that. We would probably then think in terms of putting up another satellite. But it's still in operating a capacity I'm not worried about that and more about this free business.

We don't I don't give a break. I think I mean this is the is this the come on for the first two generals and after and after that we pay now I I want to get that rate down. We're going to either do or don't here I might. OK think of it is that some hazard of my personal security volunteer. Opinion here Mr. Chairman. We of course can't say where this lead we're talking about a demonstration in two time zones and incidentally our proposal the Federal Communications Commission explicitly stated our willingness to undertake this as a trustee if they want if they make a decision to have it elsewhere at a later time. Well and there's a little more to it than that general mechanic cause now the Ford Foundation plan is. That they shoot up a satellite system that's devoted exclusively to television and radio. And that they would form a nonprofit organization and that the revenue that would be

collected in the use of this from the commercial. Networks. Would be used for purposes of programming. And they said that that system would produce for them a revenue of about 60 million dollars which of course has been questioned in question. But let's assume it's only 30 million dollars that they would use this for purposes of formulating programs and distributing these programs for educational purposes without cost. Now. What you're talking about about the trusteeship means that almost anyone else could be given this license in the AT&T I TNT or any other organization that's more or less in your line of business or as a carrier. Now the question I raises this question I raise is this is not the matter of trusteeship because if there's any question about whether it comes out or anyone else should have it. I'm all for this business of get going. And I think we ought to

have maybe a trusteeship. And I don't think that necessarily means that the Congress is committed or the FCC is committed because we could make that clear in the beginning. But there is a difference between a profit corporation such as Comsat and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Ford Foundation proposal. Because what the Ford Foundation is saying not only will we give it free the money that we collect from the commercial stations or networks we will use that money in order to formulate programs to give to the American public. Now that's a very dramatic proposal as I'm at a very dramatic proposal. Now you fellows think that you can offset that by saying we'll give you two channels free. Yeah well that's sounds nice. I like that. I like that. But then when I asked you about how about a third in the fourth channel. I think you want to go back to stockholders. I had. I had not intended to propose this pilot demonstration to run

for a couple of years and help answer all of General O'Connell's questions as a counterproposal to the Ford Foundation. Dramatic suggestion. And we're all delighted they made it really. I would say though for the longer term senator that we as a regulated carrier. Are not in a position to to make proposals by which we should put a surcharge on broadcasters and do things which be unethical to do. We do contend and our figures are available to the whole country they've been pored over and argued about by everyone. We remain just as convinced as we've ever been that you won't get the maximum economy and transmission services even to the broadcasters themselves except through the use of higher capacity multi use System. There is more money in the system than there could be in any one or number of separate systems.

And we said it really as well if it's beyond us to say how the money would be as well as you're actually saying is going to be a system at all it ought to be a multi purpose system. Most most earnestly not of the developed the economics are economic. Service. System as compared to separate system. And General MacArthur has indicated it shows an ever increasing. Economy associated with the multi service system. Hence if. The aim would be to make. Savings available for educational television certainly. There are greater savings to begin with. In a multiservice system than in having two dedicated systems. By. I realize your point now let me ask you the question categorically if you can answer it you answer it if you are not permitted to answer it just tell me so. You know I dedicating in your proposal before the FCC to channels

free. For educational purposes. My question is if the demands become greater whereby it necessitates the shooting up of another satellite in order to render more channels. Does the same proposal hold for Educational Television. We would have an answer it you just tell me you can't answer it but I'd like to know what you feel. We would have to go back to our board. We're accepting a degree of risk in the pilot program which if expanded would mean we'd have to go but you've answered my question. Any further questions that. In regard to what you're proposing here. Has any thought been given whatsoever to the possibility that. That this question we're about involved in mail service. Sent out of it can somehow be obviated by an extensive use of the satellite program. We have been studying that it is of course technically feasible. To scan. Communications to transmit them via satellite and to

reconstitute the messages on the other end. For certain types of mail there could be inherent economies. And such an operation. If you talk to Post Office Department about that before Mr O'Brien gave us the other bombshell. No we had no discussions with them on that point. I would hope you would. The other thing I'd like to ask is Dr Sherrick is that in regard to. The two channels. If they are made available. Then the question ultimately becomes one of the programming for these channels. Now you are not interested in programming at all it's not true. That's right. And as I understand the bill as it's written it is designed not to. Be involved directly in programming. But if programs do become available. Isn't it probably natural to assume. That what the two channel system will provide is a two network system of educational television.

Not necessarily I would view it that these channels could well be used for certain state interconnection for certain regional interconnection and not necessarily a national network. I understand that not necessarily but more than likely under the terms of what would happen just as today. There is this constant fight in and multi markets cities. That they still fight for that network connection for the very simple reason that the difficulty in providing even quality programs on networks is. Is difficult enough. But when an individual station has to try to provide for it it provides or prevents them from really coming up with a competitive program is that true. Well I think that the program probably would be televised nationally. It would probably be taped at the local stations but they would make their own determination just when they want to show that particular program or if they want to show it off. Yes I understand that but what as I invasion this thing I can see where all the discussion

we've had here deals with the question of who controls a monolith and that in the public television sector and that's that's a question you're you're dealing with a monolith and here's the problem we have is we say well we don't want the politicians running the monolith but we're fearful of giving it to somebody else. And I'm not critical of saying going to have two networks. Frankly I'm personally inclined at this moment to feel that what we ought to try to do is somehow develop some way to to avoid the monolith. And create a competition within public television. Itself. Whereby the competition provides for the diversity rather than far trying to depend upon the judgment of man to provide the diversity. And I think that the two deaths reason I asked in the initial instance before I knew you had a chart on the two channels. Why ask for at least more than one channel. And to my way of thinking the provision for two channels will provide ultimately for two network system.

That's what will evolve whether they envision it's going to evolve that way or not I think that's what will happen. By sheer determination of necessary programs which people are going to want to watch just as you have one of the moment one National Educational Television set up. The moment. I think maybe you might increase prove their quality if it is can be improved upon. You might improve their quality of programming if you had a competitive competing system for them but the problem is always of financing them. If the Senegalese yield at that point that's precisely I think that's what was in vision in that subsection E as I understand. I can see that this idea of developing competition. Yes. But this is the heart of it again and I am hopeful that we will not. Delay too long but I'm also hopeful we'll come up with some type of maybe some innovation and thinking maybe a bold new approach from somebody else other than those who have already had the bold approaches and. See if we can't come up with

something which will provide for our destruction of the monolith and provide for that free competition and side public television. So much of what we have in commercial television. I thought of a sort of a postscript to the answer to the chairman's question here. What can what can we do down the road. It will regardless of who makes decisions and formalities of it it will depend very much on how successful we are in building up the commercial traffic on the system because that's where the bread and butter has to come from to enable TV to get a bargain right. Education TV. You get a bargain right. Are there any further questions. I have three other witnesses now this is this situation this afternoon when we have a unanimous consent agreement for a voted to 30. Now rather than go on until 12:30 and then a recess until 2 o'clock and then interrupted. II. We have three other witnesses. I

would suggest if it meets with the approval of all concerned that we recess at this time we reassemble at 1:30 which gives us an hour before the vote comes up and will be downstairs to vote and come right back. Is that are I with you Mr. McKay of the AT&T. All right with you Mr. hole burn. Western Union. Is it all right with you Mr. Markham of New York Times. We will recess until 1:30. As you just heard from SENATOR PASTORE aide the hearing has recessed until 1:30. You just heard from tests and testimony from representatives of the communications satellite corporation presenting that testimony was General James O'Connell special assistant to the president of the United States for telecommunications. General O'Connell outlined new studies being conducted by the executive branch of government relating to

educational broadcasting. He said the study urged more diversity innovations and flexibility of networking by educational broadcasting. He strongly emphasized the need for speedy assistance for educate orders. He said Congress might study possible reduced rates for educational broadcasters and renting commercial satellite facilities and strongly emphasize the hope that experimental use of satellites would come quickly. General O'Connell was a pioneer in satellite development. He took issue with the Ford Foundation proposal that educational broadcasters shoot up and operate their own satellite. He said that this might not be a desirable factor and sad to consider such an issue at this time might needlessly bog down the pending legislation. He said it also would be unnecessary and costly as it would have to be an experiment. General O'Connell was asked to explain why the federal government should enter the broadcasting field

when state governments are doing large work in the area of educational broadcasting he said in his opinion the federal government would provide national leadership and technical development and would serve as a catalyst for stepped up growth in the field next to appear at the testimony you've just heard was that of General James McCormick chairman of Comsat communications satellite corporation. He was accompanied by Comsat President Joseph Sharma and they told that they favored the use of satellites by educational broadcasters and would not oppose preferential rights for them. Comsat officials said they would however oppose a new satellite organization for educational broadcasters sang it was unnecessary costly and duplications. The concert officials express concern for possible repercussions of the Ford Foundation proposal. They then outlined immediate future plans to extend con sat services a plan which would give two satellite channels free for Educational

Television. This would be available in about one year and would provide a transmission length from the Atlantic coast and another link for the Pacific coast during questioning Senator Vance Hart he indicated the use of two channels for educational broadcasting might lead to competition within educational Broadcasting's industry. He said this competition would be a healthy thing and would alleviate the fear of a program controlled by the federal government scheduled to appear during the afternoon session will be Kenneth McKay vice president of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company Earl de Hilburn vice president of the Western Union Telegraph Company and Lester Markel associate editor of The New York Times. The hearing will resume at 1:30 as Sen. Pastorius said at 2:30 this afternoon there will be a special vote on the floor of the Senate. A unanimous consent agreement the Senate is currently engaged in a minor filibuster. And obviously this call for 230 has something to do with that.

Yesterday on the Senate floor many members of the Democratic side were very anxious to cut off this lengthy debate which has bogged down many issues in the floor of the Senate. While I don't know for a fact it is quite possible that this unanimous consent agreement is relative to that. Now Friday as we say will also be a short day we don't yet know how short General William Westmoreland speaks Friday to a joint session of Congress. There are 10 witnesses scheduled for that time. At this point I don't see how they can go without having an afternoon session it may be a couple hour recess to hear the general. We did not have time when the broadcast started to identify all members of the committee the subcommittee on communications which is holding these hearings. It's chaired by Senator past story of Rhode Island. Other members are Mike non-running of Oklahoma Vance Hartke of Indiana heart of Michigan Russell Long of Louisiana and Democrat Frank Moss of Utah. All of those gentlemen are Democrats three Republicans also serve on the subcommittee.

They are heroes Scott of Pennsylvania James B Pearson of Kansas and Robert Griffin of Michigan. Four members of the Senate Commerce Committee appeared here during the morning session they included Senator past story and Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington he is chairman of the full Senate Commerce Committee and the author of the bill which is now being considered. Senator Frank Jay allow she of Ohio a member of the full committee also has been in attendance. And coming in late in the morning session with Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana a member of the Commerce Subcommittee on communications. Three witnesses scheduled for this afternoon's session that will resume at 1:30. Senators have now broken for lunch. These hearings are originating live from the United States Senate Office Building in Washington D.C. A special coverage is being produced by W am you FM American University Radio in Washington D.C. and by national educational radio.

This is NPR public affairs director Bill Greenwood. I'll return with the live coverage of the Senate Commerce subcommittee hearings on the proposed public television Act of 1967. That will be when the hearings resume at 1:30. This is the eastern educational radio network. We're going to renew it with something nearly everybody argues about and we thought it might be interesting to present a professional opinion.