Public Television Hearings

Please stay tuned for the congressional hearings at 10 o'clock. This is the eastern educational radio network. The United States commander in Vietnam will address a joint session of the Congress this afternoon at 12:30 Army General Westmoreland is expected to outline the progress in the Vietnam War as well as plans for the future. The address will be broadcast live beginning at 12:30 this afternoon over WGBH FM eighty nine point seven mega cycles Boston. Point of significance the editorial says Peregrine avoided broadcasting from the United States and Office are going to Washington D.C. The hearings are now on his way on the proposed television in 1967 as a chairman in charge on the final story started the hearings a few minutes early today I have been under way about the two men rushed to the first witnesses to go are hearing in the background. The reverend gentleman of the law of the Jesuit priest from Fairfield Connecticut with what I

explained earlier here as the first relatively young public television may well become an important instrumentality in arching the communications gap between the generations and the quote. The most significant provision of the legislation title to calls for the creation of the childhood but autonomous cooperation with the power to contract with various production entities with noncommercial radio or TV programs. On the nature of this unique cooperation the American Editorial has this to say quote. Central to the success and equity of this ticklish innovation is the integrity and talent of the corp membership in the proposed procedure of selection of the blue ribbon panel as 11 60 deviates from the kind of the commission's report. The bill calls for presidential appointment of all board members. The Carnegie Commission recommended that half the board be appointed by the president and these appointees themselves elect the other half. The Carnegie method

appears more suitable although it is true that the bill has strong conflict of interest provisions governing the corporation member. The insulation from government influence that the president has called for would be improved by the appointment election mechanism. Furthermore when appointments are made by the president the factors of geography ethnicity and religion invariably figure sometimes at the expense of competence. The Carnegie procedure would seem to combine some appropriate presidential emphasis on regional ethnic and religious balance. Well the same time maintaining a governing concern for competence. Just a moment I have a telephone call Senator madcap take over here for a minute. As we said a moment ago these hearings started about two minutes early. You missed about two minutes of them. Senator Metcalf is now coming to take over the chair. The first witness is the Reverend John McLaughlin at the end of the graduation rates. He now is reading the

latest of the cooperation from all along the political stretch is of paramount importance. The subcommittee is group illicitly concerned about this I know there's a committee is group realistically concerned about this I know and the man who requires no further emphasis to promote this insulation However it seems sensible to determine as early as possible and fixed and inviolate budget to be used for the hyper sensitive news in public affairs programming to be negotiated by the cooperation. The proposal made earlier by the television consultant to the Ford Foundation that the projected 30 to 60 million dollar yield which a satellite rental system would confer on the public television corporation appears and light and this could be directly channeled into the news and public affairs programming.

It is interesting to note too that this figure of about 30 million dollars reflects almost exactly the budget appropriation for news and public affairs programming and one of the three major commercial networks for 1967. This plan hinges of course on whether the satellite control is vested in a profit making body or a non profit making one. Quite rightly this question weighs upon further investigation and analysis and opinion may be briefly registered at this point however. The idea of the domestic satellite system being in the hands of a nonprofit corporation appears to articulate smoothly with the concept that the airwaves are the public domain and that significant revenues derived from the use of that domain ought in this instance go to a struggling public service instrument of such potential work as public television. Commercial interests have already gained a lion's share of the profit you from the public's

atmosphere. Briefly stated then the idea that a domestic satellite system be in the control of a nonprofit corporation makes abundant sense. Before leaving the matter of funding the following point relating to additional revenue may be of some interest to this body. You are aware Dr Jones of a packman director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution and Lee from Yale study possible tax revenues for noncommercial television of the proposers a Dr. Parkman has offered a 3 percent gross receipts tax on radio and television revenues appears most acceptable. But let me to quote briefly from the study. I quote. With broadcast revenues approximate approximating three and a third billion a 3 percent gross receipts tax would be just enough to raise 100 million at 1067 levels of activity.

Such a tax would not be onerous under current and foreseeable conditions. It would doubtless be shifted fairly promptly in higher charges to advertisers who would in turn attempt to recover the tax by shifting it forward in the form of higher prices to their consumers. Even if as much as a third of the tax were not shifted and had to be paid out of the industry's profits after tax properties would not be greatly affected. Close quote. I would add that even if the 3 percent growth rate receipts tax is not shifted at all it still appears equitable. Since the commercial interests have largely spawned the condition in which public television has become a necessity. And since their profits are notoriously healthy in 1065 570 million dollars before taxes it is they it would seem who deserve to feel the pinch not the individual TV set purchaser. It is instructive to note also that Dr Peckman and his summary assigns the 3

percent gross receipts tax a level of preference above the proposed excise tax on a sales of radio and television sets basing his judgement on considerations of quote political practicability and administrative feasibility as well as to equity and economics. Close quote. The final emphasis that I would like to share with the members of this commission deals with the subject of religious broadcasting. The editorial from which I quoted earlier reads as follows I quote in the discussions at the Senate hearings of categories of programming that public television would encourage religious broadcasting has not been cited thus far. Doubtless there are some sound reasons for this exclusion. Nevertheless we feel impelled to note that studies have shown that religious broadcast appeal to a very large audience and secondly religious news and analysis broadcasts differ from religious

proselytizing broadcast while the latter might occasion Church-State embrittlement the former surely would not close quote. To document the first of these statements I refer you to the footnote below. In two studies of broadcasting audiences one conducted in Connecticut the other in Illinois a majority of both audiences. Six out of 10 in Connecticut 65 out of the 120 Illinois reported regular billing on a listing of religious programs quote the strong audience appeal of religion is all the more apparent. No it's Everett Parker Ind. of the fact that the major religious programs are and almost without exception in the morning early afternoon and late at night on Sundays close quote With regard to the difference between religious proselytizing as opposed to religious news presentation and analysis I think we perhaps may safely assume that this distinction is understood and accepted by this body. Certainly the distinction is understood and understood and honored in other countries.

I have in mind especially Great Britain which far outstrips us both in the quality and quantity of religious programming. The Independent Television Authority in Great Britain for example has sponsored not only religious news and analysis programmes of singular depth but also has a range for seminars and institutes at universities including Oxford to discuss how to relate religion to broadcast here in the United States our religious broadcasting can hardly begin to compare with the religious broadcasting of England. I refuse to believe that this is due to an absence of interest it is due to the failure of the communications mechanism. Please do not construe these remarks about religious broadcasting as narrow or sectarian. I'm not proposing that public television be transformed into a marathon Church of the air. My stress here rather is that people everywhere are deeply interested in religious questions often explosively at a minimum implicitly to those who have a religious commitment and to those who do not have a religious commitment.

Equal voices should be given. But the question is it should be aired. This is an ecumenical bridge building. Europe television and radio are instruments of incalculable IQ medical efficacy in addition ecumenism is in the public interest acumen is and is a learning function not a missionary one. The ecumenical attitude is not proselytizing. It is cognition. It encourages the reverential approach to a person of another faith or of no faith to discover why he believes as he believes. We can only respect another's religious convictions really for the absence of those convictions that we understand why he believes as he believes. This in turn contributes to the national interest as can be seen especially in the area of leadership visibility as we become more evolved our need for leaders of superior quality becomes ever more strained. We cannot afford to risk national interest by occluding our leadership visibility by ethnic are in this instance religious bias. It comports then with the public interest to be able to see

future leadership in a word the broadcasting of religious news and analysis promotes acumen ism which in turn contributes to the national interest by erasing bias thus improving leadership visibility and creating a better informed and impartial elector. I might inject here that our late and beloved President John Kennedy instance this he himself was a superb acuminate relaxing religious bias especially by his Texas speech before the Protestant ministers by so doing that is by this ecumenical gesture he improved his own leadership visibility that is he then became as it were more visible to the electorate as a possible future leader. The conclusion is that this contributes to the public interest. I'm deeply comforted to report to this commission that the public broadcast laboratory of National Educational Television next year will analyze in-depth religious questions of topical concern.

I hope that you will see in this and all Gyuri what will be included in the future of public television programming itself. I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting from the editorial of America magazine. The sentiments of the editorial are unreservedly my own and this is the controlling stress. I would leave with you quote these observations about us about as 11:16 are only marginal and expendable and in that version whether they are incorporated in the bill or not this journal and I and Susie asked tickly support the public television act in 1967 as drafted and congratulates those public servants and institutions responsible for by promoting the free flow of information ideas and entertainment public television stand to enrich our democracy prodigiously. Thank you for your kind attention and McLaughlin this committee is indebted to you for what I consider to be a very very splendid presentation on this question of the composition of

the members of the board it as you pointed out of course said the Carnegie Commission recommended that they be 12 6 appointed by the president with the confirmation of the Senate and the other six be appointed by the six so appointed. This bill of Adis bills provides for the appointment of 15 by the president with staggered terms in that that would last for a period of six years and that they could only hold two terms of six years beyond that of course he'd have to select someone new. What would be your reaction or your observations was regard to a plan that would allow the president to choose 10 of the 15 and leave the other five to be selected by the other 10. What that did come closer to what you think is Farah. Personally I must say in all candor and honesty that if we have reached a point here that we can trust the president of the United States to pick out the caliber that is necessary to run a public television the way he has that he has

hired into the Constitution to appoint the members of the Supreme Court. I think we're in a bad way. Yes I have heard you express these sentiments before Mr. Chairman and I'm entirely sympathetic to this point of view namely that we have to trust the president to choose not rascals but men of integrity a man of distinction. I think you can take the very same premise and arrive in a very opposite conclusion. That is if he appoints men of integrity why can he not trust these men of integrity to choose six others to provide balance for the commission. Only because it seems to be a complicated way of accomplishing the same objective is going to answer I can give it is somewhat more complicated but I think the return is a measure of first of all it reduces the image of that public television could be an arm of the government whether the image is justified or not just not justified it could possibly be there. Secondly what it does is it circumvents the problem of the president always has in these appointments of incorporating strengths from ethnic regional and religious

areas and it reduces the pressure on him to conform to this. In other words there is perhaps it could be argued considerably more freedom in the selection of representatives of the panel if the sects are permitted to to choose themselves I would like to ask you this. Why does the bill reject the Carnegie Commission proposed. I have no idea. I have no idea we haven't had an opportunity to consult with the draft as of this bill since of course the question was raised during the course of these hearings. There was another and we expect to explore that. We expect to explore that. I don't think that this will be calm. A One of the while let me put it this way I don't think that this will become one of the decisive elements of the bill one way or the other. I don't think that there is any finality to any one single plan. It's a matter of judgement as to how you should do this and that's reason why I asked you the question because this bill applies stipulates for 15. There again why did they make it

15 and not 12. And maybe it was to make it a not number so that you wouldn't you could get into these eight to 7 decision right rather than six and six and that decide anything that may account for that. On the other hand this does raise it to the 15 while a kind of a proposal was for six with the president and the other six would be chosen by the six he so chose. And this of course puts it at 15 and now I really want to get your reaction whether or not you would think that halfway in between this idea of 10 and 5 according to the same system of the Carnegie proposal would better be suited to promoting this idea of fantasy. I think this would be an improvement over the existing code 11 60. However I feel that the Carnegie proposal is perhaps still better. One of the function of the. Carnegie Hall that is one one good side effect too is there are going there are

already been lobbies notably CATV yesterday who have registered a request that members members of a member at least of the commission be associated with the ATV right. And they're going to be more of the lobbies more of these pressures across now. One thing that the kind of the mechanism provide is the president with a way of escaping this pressure as I see it if he's only allowed to select sex then he can always argue I'm selecting on the basis of competence and nothing else because I can only select sex therefore as as one of the members of the panel argued here or presented here last couple of weeks ago this is therefore circumvents the problematic character representing ethnic and regional and geographic backgrounds. I want to thank you very much do you have any questions send them along. Thank you very very much.

My pleasure and I made a contribution because the next witness the judge Natalie Allen will be introduced by the distinguished senator from the from Montana judge Allen is president of the national TV translator Association. He and Senator Metcalf are now taking their seats. The chairman my very great privilege this morning to present to this to you and to the committee. One of my oldest friends in Montana judge Allen and I were classmates in law school. Since then he's gone to become one of Montana's outstanding district court judges trial judges. His integrity is respected all over the state of Montana. Judge Allen has practiced law and has participated in court hearings all over Montana all over this rural and sparsely settled area and he comes with a great deal of knowledge about the problems of the

people of that area. I'm very proud to prevent one of my oldest friends and one of my most valued constituents and we thank you very much for that a splendid accolade and and I I don't want to add anything to it for fear of spoiling it. So the chair recognizes you. Thank you for the time for this honorable Committee. My name is nat al and I am a district judge in round up Montana. I am chairman of our local TV tax district board which operates two TV translators and I am president of the national T.V. translator Association. I am not an educator an equipment manufacturer or a program supplier. The people I represent are people who want television reception in their home without paying for it twice. We are according to Commissioner Cox of the FCC holders of more broadcast

licenses with the FCC than any other single group other than radio station owners. We don't want any of these licenses we want to be rid of them. We are the people referred to before this committee a number of years ago by one of its former chairman Senator Ed Johnson of Colorado as second class TV citizens. I appear before you not to question the intent of Senate 11:16 or to damn the establishment of a better system of educational television. I come only to point out that under this bill we people are rural United States of America will continue to be second class TV citizens and we believe you have the power to correct this situation and Senate 11:16. We are sorry to the title of the three of the bill is not found of the Title 1. We believe that the proposed study is of prime importance and is long past due. We believe there

should be a seven paragraph added under Section 3 0 2 of Title 3. Under pressure the people who manufacture CATV gear and who would prefer a no TV stations except in New York and Hollywood. Plus the land mobile users page a hundred free a broadcasting airplane 67 the FCC has brought out a public notice dated April 14 to investigate the upper and lower ends of the TV broadcast UHF space for land mobile units. I point out that we have a rural America. I have no faith in the FCC. We had to tangle in court with the FCC to maintain ourselves. We had to come before this committee starting in 1958 to get Congress to take us out of the illegal classification which the FCC had placed us. The chairman of this Communications Committee spent many hours and days and traveled many

hundreds of miles on the problem. For this we wish to express our sincere thanks. But we have had to fight for everything we have received since that date. The FCC is not aiding in any way to get signals to our own. Even today our US system of TV translators is about as decadent as a horse and buggy when compared with TV translators in Canada and Japan. We have people in rural America have to pay for our television twice once when we purchased the products of the TV advertisers who pay for the programs. And again when we construct and maintain translators over which we receive TV signals in both Japan and Canada the TV stations are allowed high powered on attendant TV translators. The same should be allowed here. We believe that before you spend millions of dollars on any educational TV system you should include in the study authorized under Section 3 0 2. Another paragraph.

We suggest the following for Title 3 Section 3 0 2 paragraph 7. The need for TV channels for the dissemination of education television via both TV transmitters and TV translators so that all people in the USA are rural as well as city may have the benefits of educational television. What you're actually suggesting here is more or less the same spirit it wouldn't be exactly the same as the Rural Electrification plan to place some time back. Another way designed to stand you there are certain areas of the country where it's almost impossible to receive a signal and then the only other alternative that you haven't because they don't concern themselves too much with that because it's not as lucrative as in the congested areas as causes the cable which would be the CATV and you have to put these translators up from point to point in order to get the signal to you. Then at the point you're making. Or we don't put the translators up

from point to point get the signal to as we get the signal from the station and the cables do away with the stations they have stopped the growth of stations in Montana completely. We would have twice as many there if it weren't for cables. Well you know it's a funny thing there was quite of a hollow as you recall when I came to Montana I did come to Billings and then we traveled and several others. I think we went down the beauty as well and we went down to Helena as well and at that time of cause there was a tremendous amount of spirit to this whole controversy on the part of the broadcasters and for some reason it's waned a little bit and you know what I've discovered they've bought in the CATV. I'm glad you discovered that zen and I linger longer than I used to. Yeah. What you are actually saying is that that in these rural areas where it's hard to maintain the same profit system or incentive

as you might have in the congested areas this substitution of causal CATV barely skims off the crane and eventually a cause will hurt the whole substance of bringing free television to the people. Exactly. They don't even they don't even hook up if they go into the city like Hell no they don't hook up over 60 or 70 percent of what the other 30 percent can't afford or are too stubborn to pay $6 a month or 750 Loz $5 for getting a reception but on the other hand it would need to admit this judge I was going to say urana. And when you hit would you admit this that if we could invoke more generously this title won. I particularly in this bill but what the evolution of time so that we can produce more money for the establishment of some of these educational

facilities plus the fact that there would be some some effort made under Title 2 to help them in some of their operational difficulties. At least we can do a lot for these people in the rural areas who are very much interested in the development of public or educational television. And I think fundamentally I think that's what we're getting at. You see we have the same problem with educational television reserve the with commercial television as you would have in the rural areas and maintaining enough stations you say for the simple reason that the profits are not there they don't have that many subscribers and people are sparsely located. And and naturally commercial television depends entirely upon the number of people that they reach in order to sell the advertisers product. And there is the lack of money or the lack of the profit incentive a cost that put you in this what you call be a second class

citizenship. I think myself it is a national concern and something ought to be done about it. We've been struggling with it for years. We thought at one time that we had the problems as a matter of fact if you hadn't come here this morning I kind of thought it was solved because the TV stations in Montana of course have a low sparsely settled group in the first place. Oh I know. But now RCA TV is governed along come along and taken 36000 subscribers away from them. They go to hell and they go to Butte when they go to Billings in the fall or in Great Falls excepting of course our distinguished majority leader. They're out of luck. Before leaving the subject we point out that the top 12 UHF channels are per presently used by TV translators in the California study and report by their television advisory committee on page 7. They express a

desire for the upper 30 UHF channels for educational TV. Should this be an educational necessity. The present TV channels are totally inadequate in number. Now the FCC is she is thinking of diluting the number of channels under date of April 17th commission and Lee is the only commissioner to have descended on a suggestion we attach a dissent at the end of our remarks. You gentlemen of the Senate must remember that Congress has only recently passed legislation which made available to the public all Channel TV receivers only now are the UHF channels coming into their own. You must also know that only recently has the FCC allowed TV TV stations to cooperate with TV translator owners or to own translators TV translators of their own. Since all channel receivers are now on the market and since the FCC now allows TV stations to own

TV translators although that inadequate in power the building of TV translators has increased greatly. There are today more than 2000 TV translators in the USA and that is a mistake. I didn't have time to count all the TV translators in those books but I had my report a number of the pages and there are 10 to a page very uniformly. There are three hundred fifteen pages and I wish to amend that 2000 to 3000 because there are at least that many in this book was five months old. Their growth would have progressed far beyond this number. If the FCC had but kept the broadcasters in the business of broadcasting instead of allowing and encouraging them to become part owners of CATV systems this not only Alliance has in many cases Blendon the

broadcaster desire to build and expand free over the air broadcasting. And this is not alt.. Today the FCC is doing not one thing to stop network ownership of TV cable. NBC has just purchased a second cable installation according to broadcast magazine April 3rd 67. In my state of Montana with a TV receiver connected to a cable system you can watch NBC bro grams directly out of NBC New York and Hollywood studios. Without those programs ever going through a broadcast station before coming to your receiver This is not building. It is a strong the very television broadcast system Congress instructed the FCC to set up and develop for Allah people. There is little wonder the networks are getting into the cable business they own or at least control the time for the show. In the city of Great Falls Montana if your cable connected you can watch all the network shows the two local stations broadcast at least

one more and sometimes twice more the same evening and at different times than scheduled on the local stations. This practice is also stunning in destroying local over the air television broadcasting and gentleman over the air broadcasting and television as the only television people of rural USA can see. I have a couple of programs printed in the newspaper. Sunday April 22nd This is the Great Falls Tribune one a Saturday the one you're looking at is Sunday. They're both a bottle like in area. The red indicates programs that have been broadcast three times. The yellow indicates the repetition one twice two times to broadcast the first two columns are the local TV stations

and one to the last five columns are cable. When they sell when they sell a cable for these people and they say we'll give you five more channels besides the two you have people think they're going to get two and a half more times reception than they receive but actually they're getting almost no further reception than they would have over the two stations if they didn't connect to the ticket if I may if I may state a problem I'm filing very very close to a judge and I want to tell you I think outset that I'm very sympathetic to the arguments that you're developing but unfortunately I found in my public life that sometimes when you try to enforce the public interest you're up against the proposition of the very people that you're trying to help in the long range of the people who are going to come in here and lobby against what you're trying to do. Now let me give you an example. I

never forget when I was governor of my state. The telephone company. Under the lore of the state imposed the new schedule of rates and under the law that we had existing at the time they could they could file this new schedule and then after the increase of rates just by the mere firing. If it was discovered laid around by hearing then they would have to make a rebate. Well I kind of thought that that was not in the public interest. So I appointed a Consumer Council to make the telephone company justify their claim for the rates on the premise that when they had justified it then they could impose it. Now the minute I did that who do you think began to climb on me. The people who were working for the telephone company because they were told that if this new schedule went through they might get an increase in salary. In other words they were getting an apple for notching you say.

Now the same way on CATV we run up against the proposition that the minute you begin to move in on this whole problem and I can follow you very explicitly on this because with a small local broadcasting station let's say in the state of Montana you see that station can only show one network at a time. Now there are a lot of affluent people in Montana who'd like to have the enjoyment of seeing three networks any time they want to and they can afford it but without realizing that eventually if this gets out of hand what is going to do is destroy free television. That's what's going to do is going to destroy free television say and that's where the opposition comes now that's the question I want to ask you what is the feeling of the people in Montana who do subscribe to CATV Do they subscribe to it because they can afford it and they want to pay for it and want to have that service or do they subscribe to it only because they have to and I think the

performer is correct and that's what you're up against. I talk to them alla time particularly lawyers I meet. Maybe I shouldn't talk to lawyers they often tell a judge what he wants to hear but on the other hand a lot of them tell a judge what he doesn't want to hear too I think perhaps it's not a bad group to talk to but they subscribe in some instances because they only have one channel if they don't or they have two channels sometimes they have no channels in Bozeman they don't have any choice. They have no channels in voting except CATV. There should be a one station if not two stations in Bozeman. There isn't any. Right I dare say there's I dare say like the social and Downer tomorrow proles proposed and accomplished it and all

CATV be expelled from the state I don't think he would be returned back to office. Our regrettably Europe gets the practical proper Why aren't there a lot of people in this country a lot of people in this country who would rather have television than a good meal and there's reason for right reason for. I mean television has become an intricate part of our daily lives and you'd be surprised how many people it was brought out here only a short while ago that our young people devote more time in looking at television and they do in the hours they devote to their schoolwork. And that's a pretty interesting thing. Now this is not all bad. This is not all bad because television can be very instructive very very instructive. But people and that includes me I love to look at television some people come in here and they criticize bananas and always pry watch them. They relax me. I don't think there are

a bleep bad I like them. Look at Toscanini. I like to see South Pacific but once in a while I like Bonanza too are some of the shows that they put Hanukkah also quite childish and I I don't buy that too much. But after all of America has a taste and you've got to satisfy that. And the reason why we're considering this bill here today is because there are other people who have various Pace who don't have the opportunity of having those taste satisfied and we feel that this public television of course can serve a great purpose. But to come back to the very thing that brings you here the smile we've got a tough nut to crack but I agree with you. And I think the FCC ought to review very carefully this idea of the networks and the broadcasters buying into CATV because eventually eventually if we're not careful this country will

end up on paid television and going away with free television. Now I've said a hundred times there is a place in this society for a CATV. There are many places in the country you take Connecticut for instance Connecticut does not have of the age of the h f station. Now I am told they have one in New Haven and one in Hartford. While that may be a recent development but I know a lot of people in New Haven have to subscribe to C 18 in order to get the three networks for the simple reason. The proper image does not comes through it's not sharp enough and most of it because as you pointed out a UHF out. As I said before there are places where I see a tee vee fits in in order to give to the people a service that ordinarily they would not get. But in the process in the process we should not kill the goose that laid the

golden egg. And that's free television. There's one other point I hesitate to mention with the press here with us me at the people who would object to this being taken away if they knew the facts they wouldn't. And of course it's the press's fault that they don't know all the facts and they have an interest in lack of stations too because they compete with the local broadcasting stations for advertising and they don't wish to push free television because that establishes more stations CATV would remove all the local stations and remove their competition for advertising and I think they neglect the educating people about this problem. And I saw it used. In Lewistown Montana Miles City Montana where told there are applications by stations for 100 watt VHF TV translators on FCC assigned

channels from the Ds applications have been filed to the FCC for a considerable time. Nothing has been done. And the last year the FCC for rural folks is most disappointing. Yet they set up a special site is set up a special section of the commission to get more program duplication by cable into the top 100 metro market. Already the state of Connecticut has halakhic called a halt to joint ownership of stations and cables in the same community. The FCC is rumored it may have another look if it does not do so. The Department of Justice will have to. And incidentally I will inform the Department of Justice since I've been in Washington a lot of problems. Until we can know exactly what the need of educational TV will be to transmit signals to our people until we know what expansion into the TV translator field TV stations will make there should be no dilution of the number of TV

channels presently assigned to television broadcasting service and you gentlemen should use your good offices to see that this be the case. You could well place an appendage to our suggested Paragraph 7 0 3 0 2 which would prohibit such dilution of channels until a suggested study under Senate 11 60 is completed. We are in America would benefit a great benefit greatly if the commission would license local origin Asian for TV translators. This could be done by a mother's TV station and give sight and sound to local communities all over the United States. It would give voice to local business teachers preachers social and agricultural workers as well as the local politicians. Such a system could be supported by local community advertising dollars and thus cut the gap that is building between small town and Metro America. Besides it would take we people of a thousand walks of life out of the TV translator business out of a business we have been forced into through lack of imagination and

ingenuity on the part of the FCC and educational television can come to us with local origination in the same manner. I attach it to a man or memorandum on the farm in the form of a talk on the subject. A local TV translator origination The title is rural America deserves better TV indices will be made part of the rice I reference yesterday. I would like to direct attention to Title 2 of section 2 a one paragraph 8. It seems to us that this paragraph may be satisfactory if it is referring only to the transportation of program intelligence from the point of origin to the point of transmission by radio or television stations being very translator minded it appears to us that the period at the end of the sentence after the word station should be struck in the sentence should be extended with the words or translators. And then a period then the place the period a period after the word translated while use of translators has been common in television networks in Japan and we understand radio networks in

Canada and here in the United States the general use of TV translators is between the mother station and the public. The translator becomes a part of the and distributing mechanism. As a matter of fact I never heard of a translator between point of origin on the station until I read about your bill I didn't know there were such translators. The only translator I know of is between the station and all. Under Section 396 of Title 2 we must compliment the office of Senate 11 60 for having a bill stressed both local and national levels for a program for programming participation without FCC authorization for the local origination by TV translators. We have already suggested there will be no program participation and by rural America we call your attention to paragraph 5 under Section 8 and note that all citizens of the United States are included. We point out this is a total impossibility on the present FCC limitation on

TV translator power and methods of activation. We asked this committee to ask the FCC to demonstrate the channel needs to you for total coverage of both rural and urban America for one single set of educational television. We do this because we believe you should know the limitations the FCC has placed on translator the TV translator coverage. We want you to know that just north of us in Canada I powered on attended translators are allowed under the same international agreements that our country adheres to. We want you to know that unless you gentlemen this committee see to it that you are creating in this bill an educational system of television which will be available to a lot of the people of this country. Just as you say in section 3 9 2 6 8 5. That we people of rural America will object to the use of any of our tax dollars for such a system that will not serve us and today the only way you can get television programs to our homes is through the use of TV translators.

We plead with you words the FCC to be more realistic with our translator rules. I like to draw the analogy there that the broadcasting companies are the power companies and so our seat CATV with WI translators are the RIAA of America will go out on the farms and in the small town where neither cable nor the big station can get to it. Let me ask you this question because you are a jurist of renown and you do have a legal analytical mind of cost a bill we're considering today has to do exclusively with educational television public television as as distinguished from commercial television much of the criticism that you have placed before this committee today concerns itself of course with the inadequacies of even commercial television in the

state of Montana. Now considering the fact or accepting it as a premise that what we are concerned with here fundamentally is public television or educational terms. And if it becomes necessary in order to bring this service to the people of Montana and when I talk about this service I'm talking about educational television. What is it in the law that prohibits the consideration of translators. If that is necessary to bring the message to the people. Do you see anything in this bill that prohibits that. No it's the FCC that prohibits it. While they won't have anything to do with this. This is a judgment that is to be made either by the Department of Health Education and Welfare in giving facility money or it has to do with the public the public corporation if it has to do with the operational function of the educational television stations got nothing to do with FCC has nothing to do would have CC In other words.

What I'm saying is this. If someone in Great Falls applies for an educational television broadcasting station.