Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Min 05/15/1967
1042 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building May 15, 1967 Items 1 & 2 The Board of Aldermen of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, met in called session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 7:00 o'clock P.M. , with the following members present: R. C. Rancier Mayor R. Kenneth Hill X James M. Davis X Leroy Daniel X Aldermen Max Kruger X Jack Davis City Manager H. P. Hodge, Jr. City Attorney Wilma J. Thomas City Clerk I S. M. Lyons Absent Cletus C. Schenk Absent The invocation was given by Alderman Hill. - - - - - - - - - Mayor Rancier made a few opening remarks, stating that the purpose of this meeting was to determine the merits or demerits of CATV, and not to accept applicat- ions for a franchise. In order to conserve time and space, the briefs of each of those who appeared are attached to and made a part of these minutes. (See agenda folder for brochures mentioned.) Mr. Rhea Howard appeared in behalf of Mr. James Barnett, and introduced Mr. John Tyler, who made the presentation for Wichita Falls Cable Television Company. Mr. Tyler stated he was associated with Wichita Falls Cable Television Company, and that he represented Carter Publications. Mr. Tyler stated that advertising would be carried, but that he would not sell it. When questioned, he stated that San Diego has representation of three net- works and two cable systems. He stated they could bring in five Dallas channels. In one study it was concluded that there was no effect on the economic status of a city due to out of town advertising. He also stated that he could not see that it would have any effect on free TV that is now available, or that it would interfere in any way with those who chose not to be on the cable. Alderman Davis asked what service would be rendered to the public by having cable TV that cannot be obtained by free TV. Mr. Tyler stated there would be extra hours of movies, sports events, educational programs, etc. , that are not now available. lie requested that a cable TV company not be limited in performing different public service programs. He stated that cable TV got its start in remote areas, but has grown to the point where it is providing additional services which a broadcasting station cannot provide. Ralph Bullington, of Wichita Falls Home Electronics Company, was not present. Tom Danaher, representing United Cable Television Company, stated that the owners of his company besides himself are French Robertson, Don Pearson, and Tom Culner, all of Abilene. He stated that he does not feel that a cable TV would damage the local stations. He also stated that he would be willing to abide by FCC regulations. His company does not intend to make an additional charge for a special program. This is strictly another type of business. Edgar Deen, Jr. , 1510 Covington, was not present. John Mark Hirschi, Arena Corporation, was not present. 1043 William Lasky, of International Telemeter Corporation, was unable to be present, but Mr. Robert Jones was here instead. fie represented Gulf and Western Industries, which is the parent of Auto Spring and Supply of Wichita Falls. They would propose that four Los Angeles stations be brought by micro wave to Wichita Falls. The cost would be more than justified by the additional number of subscribers in the system. They have a converter which would offer as many as 25 different stations on the system. Permission would be required from the F.G.C. to microwave these channels from Los Angeles. Mr. Jones introduced Mr. George Brownstein, an engineer for International Telemeter Corporation. Mr. Brownstein stated that programs from Dallas would be picked up by antenna. When a radiated signal is used then application,must be made to the F.C.C. Mr. Jones stated they would be willing to abide by the rules of the F.C.C. He explained that cable TV would offer a tremendous advantage to schools to have the educational channel. Mr. Brownstein stated that Los Angeles offers several programs of sports, movies, etc, which could be brought into the area. Their company has a converter in operation which they patented, and they intend to show it in Chicago next month. They operate in Canada, Palm Springs, California, two locations in Louisiana, Kentucky, and anticipate operation in Tennessee. Mr. Elmer Parish appeared, representing TV cable of Wichita Falls, Inc., and American Cable TV, Inc. He stated that they have 28 cable TV systems in operation, and 18 others under construction. He explained that the system which they propose will not interfere with the local stations. Subscription will not be necessary, but if a person desires to subscribe, it will improve color TV. They would propose to bring in four independent Los Angeles stations. Installation of the system in Wichita Falls would cost in the neighborhood of one million dollars. Don Reese, GT $ E Communications Inc. , was not present. Bill Thacker, appeared, representing North Texas Cable TV Systems, stating that he believes this is a matter of whether the Council is going to prohibit a business in Wichita Falls. He does not believe that TV should be limited because of advertis- ing in different town, because it would have a minute effect. He stated they would like to locate educational facilities in Midwestern University, and pick up classroom participation for broadcast. They could bring in Dallas and Fort Worth systems by microwave. He also stated that he would be opposed to the City going into this business. It was pointed out that applications for franchise must be presented to the City of Wichita Falls because it involved use of the public right of way. Mayor Rancier stated that the Chamber of Commerce had previously requested that a public hearing on CATV be deferred in order to enable them to form a comm- ittee to study it. A letter addressed to Mr. Joe Wolverton, president of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that they could see no need at the present time for CATV, but should it be desirable later, then it should be governed by the FCC. Mr. Darrold Cannan, Jr. , of KFDX TV, stated that cable TV is discriminatory since it is based an the customer's ability to pay. He stated it is also a sales threat. He was opposed to program organization. Mr. Bill Hobbs, KAUZ TV, stated he would find no fault in cable TV in the areas for which it was originally instituted. fie stated that copyright laws would have to be instituted to protect these stations. Dr. D. Clifford Burross appeared as a proponent of CATV stating he was not an applicant. tie commented that 1957 was the first time the council was involved. It was brought up again in 1963, and in December 1965 a public hearing was held. In January 1966, Mayor Wallander and City Manager Jack Davis visited in Washington on this matter. Because of the hearings of the FCC in February, the decision was delayed. He stated that the responsibility of the FCC is that free TV is avail- able to the public. It was his opinion that the Chamber of Commerce was completely out of order in asking for a delay of the public hearing. No matter what their report, he felt no one but the Board of Aldermen has this responsibility. He feels the Council's position is not one of the limiting competition. He stated that he was happy to see the desire for outside interests to be located in Wichita 1044 Falls. He stated that full TV coverage should not be confused with network coverage. Wide coverage should be possible with anything =we can bring in to our citizens, and let them have a choice. He stated that further advances in cable TV will be made, but we cannot wait for them. The decision will be harder to make for future councils. He feels that the less the government is involved the better it will be. Mr. H. P. Hodge, Jr. , City Attorney, reported on the trip to Washington for the FCC hearing. Their regulations provided that certain rules for the top 100 markets be established, and other rules for under the top 100 markets. After appropriate proceedings some action would probably be taken. They had held a hearing in Lexington, Kentucky, but there was no evidenciary hearing for Wichita Falls. One of the questions involved the effect on VHF of granting a franchise. Moved by Alderman Hill that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Alderman Kruger, and carried unanimously. The Board of Aldermen adjourned at 12:05 A.M. PASSED AND APPROVED this t.//day of ) � , 1967. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CATV IN WICHITA FALLS TEXAS Wichtex Radio and TV Company P Y KFDX-TV May 1, 1967 First, reviewing governmental action since the public hearing held by the Wichita Falls City' Council December 6, 1965, some significant changes have occurred in the Federal Commun- ications Commission's regulatory authority over CAN and is important in considering the over- all picture of Cable TV today. In March of 1966 the Federal Communications Commission released its "Second Report and Order"1 -, whereby it announced its intention to assume reg- ulatory authority over all CAN. In brief, the new rules and regulations are as follows: 1 . The new regulations apply equally to all CAN whether served by microwave relay or off-the-air pickup. 2. A CATV system must carry, without material degradation in quality, the signals of all local television stations within whose Grade B Contours the system is located . 3. CAN systems must afford local stations (Grade B or better) the same day non- duplication protection of programming. 4. All existing or proposed CATV systems must supply the F.C.C. with detailed ownership reports. 5. The top 100 television markets (based on American Research Bureau net weekly circulation figures2') are given blanket protection against CAN systems which propose to extend the signals of outside television stations beyond their Grade B Contours. Any CAN system desiring to do this in the top 100 markets must receive F.C.C. approval before doing so. Upon such request the F.C.C. will hold evidentiary hearings which will be concerned primarily with (1) the effects of the proposed CATV system on the development of off-the-air television outlets (particularly UHF) and (2) the relationship of the proposed CATV operations and possible development of PURE PAY TV in that market. The burden of con- vincing the F.C.C. that its proposed operation will not have a deterring effect 1 . The "Second Report and Order" released by the F.C.C. March 8, 1966, is its official document which spells out the Commission's new rules and regulations over community antenna television systems and their reasoning for doing so. A copy of this lengthy document is available in the Ci ty Attorney's office. 2. Wichita Falls is ranked 124th (1966 figures). -2- on the development of new UHF stations and the healthy maintenance of existing independent stations in that market is squarely placed on the shoulders of the CATV franchise holder. Obviously, this will be almost impossible to prove with the Commission taking a protective attitude toward its own, and in view of the many technical aspects of the broadcast industry, too detailed to go into here, however; thus, resulting in, for all practical purposes, complete and blanket protection for these magic one-hundred markets. No such protection is afforded the smaller markets beyond the toe 100 by the F.C.C. Conse- quentlyo the question should be asked why this protection was not extended beyond the top 100 to include all television markets. The Commission answers this way: First, the Commission is concerned primarily with the development and main- tenance of UHF broadcast stations since charged with this responsibility by Congress when it enacted its "All-Channel Set Legislation" in 1962.3. There- fore, the Commission maintains that it is in the larger top 100 markets that UHF is most likely to develop sooner and thus be more adversely affected by compe- tition from CATV systems and their importation of distant signals.4. Second, "The top one-hundred markets include roughly 90% of the television homes in this country. Our policy therefore focuses on the critically important areas."5 Third, if the F.C.C. required hearings in all television markets (there are some 230 distinct television markets) it would create such a burden on the F.C.C. staff that it would be virtually impossible to adequately hear all cases in any reasonable 3. This legislation required that all new television sets manufactured after March of 1964 have built in all UHF tuners. 4. See Paragraphs 189-144, "Second Report and Order," March 8, 1966. 5. Paragraph 144, "Second Report and Order," March 8, 1966. -3- length of time . Thus, it could possibly thwart the initiation of needed service in some markets where viewers are not now receiving a full three-network ser- vice, and since they are giving the top 100 markets full protection on the UHF question, the smaller markets can best solve their own problems themselves and provide their own protection when needed and necessary. In other words, in the larger cities the problem would be solved and settled on the UHF question, and in the smaller cities where the UHF problem is not as immediate the problem would be settled more properly on the public interest question; and who would be more qualified to determine by local hearings how best the public interest would be served than the local city government itself. Whether or not to grant a franchise and who should receive such grants, if any, remains the sole province of the local city government -- large or small . Even though we take issue with the Commission on this point (protection should be extended beyond the top 100 markets to include all markets receiving a full three-network service), and have formally done so by filing before the F.C.C. the "Petition For Reconsideration of the CAN Second Report and Order," dated April 7, 1966, this is the Com- mission's policy and ruling as it stands today. Fourth, the risk of CAN becoming PURE PAY N on the basis of signals appro- priated from the broadcaster is greatest in the larger markets. The F.C.C. feels that it will be more difficult for PURE PAY TV to flourish in the smaller markets if it cannot gain a foothold in the larger markets. They are aware that if CAN ever flourishes in the larger markets there is nothing that can be done to stop the cancerous growth of PURE PAY TV across the entire country. Finally, the F.C.C. asked Congress for a bill that would confirm their authority without question to assume jurisdiction over CAN and to impose regulations upon this industry. It also requested further clarification and guidance on the question of their authority to regulate and limit program origination by CAN systems. In March, April and May of 1966 the House Commerce Committee held hearings on this proposed bill (H.R. #13286), and in .June reported out a bill that reconfirmed the F.C.C.'s right to regulate, as well as a clause that prohibited community antenna systems from transmitting over 4- their systems any program or other material than that which it has received directly or indirectly over the air from a broadcast station. However, it recognized certain limited exceptions to be determined at the Commission's sole discretion. In other words, this Act would have specif- ically prohibited program origination and closed circuit programming by CATV. However, this bill was not acted on before Congress adjourned. It is expected that the bill will be reintroduced in the current session of Congress for passage . III I� III i I � II i II Even though the picture has changed somewhat because of the tightening of governmental reg- ulation and control of CATV since the hearing held by this Counci l in December of 1965, the basic dangers that we warned you about then still exist today . With or without proper controls CATV poses a serious and possibly fatal threat to the healthy maintenance of Wichita Falls broadcast television and the continuance of free television service at no cost to all viewers. Free television is available to all, regardless of their financial status. Cable television is discriminatory since it is based on the customer's ability to pay. Therefore, our position today is as it was then, one of vigorously opposing CATV in Wichita Falls. The basic concept of our previous pleading before this group has not changed . We re-emphasize our deep concern over the ultimate deterioration of our local free television ser- vice forceably replaced by a pay-as-you-go system available only to an affluent few and to the ultimate disadvantage of the many. As CAN or Pay TV, whichever you might call it, becomes stronger, free television becomes weaker. Its service rendered then becomes less attractive to the viewer. Consequently, the I viewer, to receive the first class service he has become accustomed to, is forced, if he can afford it, to "hook-up" to the cable . As we are reduced to a second class service and offer the all-so-important advertiser fewer viewers, our attractiveness to the national advertiser and to the network advertiser diminishes. This chain reaction continues until we are no longer needed by the network as an outlet in the Wichita Falls market. With no importance to the network our affiliation contract would most certainly be canceled and this market would then be served by their affiliate in the larger metropolitan area. Since all applications are proposing to import the Dallas-Ft . Worth stations, Wichita Falls would then receive their network ser- vice from this area. Readily it can be seen that the "non-duplication protection" becomes useless at this point in the smaller secondary markets. This danger is still very much apparent and cannot be discounted. The danger still exists that an unscrupulous CAN operator might degrade she signal of the local stations for the purpose of encouraging viewers to connect to the cable by unfairly showing him -b- that his network programs will be better received from another source even though delayed. And this brings up one of the most serious dangers of all . No law today prohibits a CATV system from recording on video tape or other means a station's network schedule and replaying it back one or more days later. Thus the broadcaster is robbed of his most prized and valuable possession -- program rights and program exclusivity. Easily the broadcaster's audience could be diluted to a disastrous point where he could no longer survive in a market this size . The problem of CATV program origination presents the broadcaster with one of his biggest fears -- unreasonable and unfair competition . Broadcasting is carefully and closely regulated for the public's protection. CATV is not. It seems elementary therefore that if broadcasting is to be regulated any extention thereof should be regulated in the some manner and degree. Certainly you would not propose that it is fair competition for one competitor to be regulated and to abide by oftentimes restrictive standards and the other competitor not . The ideal of equal justice under the law should require equal regulations. Through the licensing process the F.C.C. holds power of life and death over the licensee. Today no one holds anything over the CAN operator. Congress has proposed legislation to control program origination by CATV systems, but nothing has been resolved yet . The F.C.C. wants the some control over CATV program content as it now has over broadcast television, but will not assume such control until specifically given the authority by Congress. Even today the CATV industry, through a test case in the courts, is questioning legally the small amount of authority over CATV assumed by this governmental agency without such authority being specifically given to it by legislative action by Congress. Unless Congress decrees by the law of the land that CATV originated programming be controlled by the F.C.C. or some other body, there is no way that I know that you can place permanent strong and lasting controls over the programming of a Wichita Falls CATV system. Your control could certainly be no more than that which you can exercise over the movies displayed in any of out local theatre houses or drive-in theatres. Artyway, your attempt to do this is full of loopholes and weaknesses. Some cities are limiting CATV systems to carrying the signals of broadcast stations only and limiting program origination to weather scan or news wire reproduction only. No closed circuit or locally originated programming is allowed. This might be a temporary SIP • -7- solution, but what assurance would there be that there would be no breakdown of this control in the future? The brocdcaster is charged by Section 315 of the Communications Act "to operate in the pub- lic interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance, " and to provide equal time for all candidates and their political parties. Not so for the CAN operator. He is completely free from all restrictions and obligations. He can censor your speech at will or suppress it altogether. He is free to repeat endlessly the speeches and advertisements of your opponents. He is under no obligation to fairly present both sides of a controversial issue. To bring this a little closer to home, if in the recent charter ammendment referendum requested by the Firemen, a CATS, operator, friendly with the firemen's cause, could have mercilessly used his operation, franchised by you, against you. You might say that this would be his pre- rogative, but it is also his prerogative to refuse you an opportunity to reply. No law today prohibits the CATV operator from originating obscene, profain, or salacious mat- erial . CATV is unrestricted. They are free to originate any kind of material they choose. Wisely and properly the F.C.C. has prohibited television and radio from broadcasting information concerning lotteries or programs which Involve the elements of gambling. Again, CATV today is under no such restraint. If our service is reduced even one iota, then you have contributed towards rendering a disservice to our friends who reside in the rural areas and smaller communities. CATV cannot and wi II not serve these area people who so much depend on Wichita Falls television, since it is economically unfeasible and engineeringly impossible to provide them with ccble hook-up service . And wheat about our less fortunate citizens who cannot afford a CATV hook-up? Should their television be disrupted and relegated to a second class service offered by the then weakened and impaired free television stations just to the advantage of an affluent few? Cable TV claims they offer more service and greater freedom of choice. We ask how much more service and choice, and at who's expense? It is inconceivable that if CAN in Wichita Falls is permitted it will not -8- obstruct the development of new local television stations and at the very least, seriously impair the quality and scope of service provided by existing television stations. i i III This brings us to the UHF question. The F.C.C. has allocated for Wichita Falls two UHF channels (Channels 18 and 24), one commercial and one noncommercial educational They have never been put on the air simply because of the lack of television sets in our homes which could receive the UHF signal . But since the enactment in 1962 by Congress of the All-Channel Receiver legislation, UHF set count has been increasing rapidly;ra idl • and in the not too distant 9 future will reach the point where a fourth commercial UHF station in this market will become feasible, and thus attractive to an investor. But with CAN already deeply entrenched, this station will never get on the air. The competition from CAN will be too strong for anyone to chance it. The UHF station will not only have to compete with many other TV stations from outside, as well as the three locals for audience, but will also have to compete in the market place with independent stations from the larger cities for programming. Because of the nature of indepen- dent's programming, the non-duplication protection afforded by the F.C.C. would be of no value whatsoever. Most certainly the argument will be raised that CAN will offer this UHF station a ready-made audience over its system. Therefore, CAN wi l l aid rather than hinder the development of UHF . This is just not so, and the F.C.C. does not believe it either.b' The increased competition from outside stations and the fragmentation of the limited audience interested in viewing non-network programming would more than offset the advantages of CATV bringing UHF into more homes sooner. Besides, the UHF station will in any event gain this same CAN audience through the operation of the All-Channel Receiver law. Big city independents would control the lion's share of non-network audience. "We think this follows as a matter of common sense since these established big city VHF independents certainly have the ability to bid for and acquire the expensive, attractive, non-network programming."7' ,II As noted in the F.C.C. "Second Report and Order," UHF is not only the best but the only 6. F.C.C. "Second Report and Order," March 8 1966. See Paragraphs 119-123. Po � � 7. F.C.C. "Second Report and Order," March 8, 1966. See Paragraph 123. -9- practical way of achieving an adequate commercial and educational television system in the United States. It would allow markets the size of Wichita Falls to have someday four com- mercial television outlets as well as its own educational television station . Today new sets with all UHF channels are going on the market at the rate of over 9,000,000 a year. "Congress and the American public have staked a great deal on the development of UHF . Many UHF stations have gone on the air since 1964 and applications for UHF chan- nels have increased at a substantial rate . "With this increased ferment in UHF, we believe that the next few years will supply the critical answer to whether the Congressional goal of a truly nationwide television system employing both UHF and VHF on an effective intermixed basis will be achieved."9' i time would without question destroy an chance of our UHF station A hasty decision at this q y y ever going on the air. These unused commercial and educational UHF channels in Wichita Falls also are the property of you and your constituents. They deserve your protection as well if the public interest is to best be served. Therefore, if you were to approve CATV you are not only quite possibly destroying and most assuredly seriously damaging your existing broad- cast television service, but you are also depriving our community of this new service which someday will render a valuable public service and offer even more choice of television to all -- and it's free , It also stands to reason that competition from outside educational stations would greatly diminish the interest of those, individuals and groups, who might be willing to offer financial aid in the development of our own allocated educational channel . The F.C.C. also recognizes the serious- ness of this problem, too . smaller markets on this UHF problem, But the F,C,C has been unable to come to the aid of the p , 8 "5econd Report and Order," March 8 1966, See Paragraph 114, F,C,C, po � ► 9 P 9. F.C.C. "Second Report and Order," March 8, 1966. See Paragraph 115. -10- because the development of UHF is more immediate and critical in the larger markets and requires all of their resources and attention first. All proponents of CAN have one common claim -- greater service and more choice. If this be the case and the are so anxious to serve the public interest why haven't the availed Y p Y Y themselves of the opportunity of serving the public with the UHF channel available in our market? Congress and the F.C.C. have made it possible for these people to enter the broad- costing business through the front door. Whey aren't they trying to serve ALL of your can- stituents, both the poor and the affluent and our rural friends as well? •r IV I j Now, let's take a close look at both the applications and the applicants. A close investi- gation will reveal one thing glaringly common to all • Each and every application contains i major outside interest holders who instigated the applications, and is backed heavily by out- side money . At this time there have been five rather informal applications or notices of i intent to file received by our City Attorney. Two of them, however, deserve attention here . First, Wichita Falls Cable Company, a group which involves the Times Publishing Company, the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, and WRAP Radio and WBAP Television. Carter Publications, incidentally, has made application in a number of other Texas cities. We are just one of many and their pattern is the same. They tie in with the local group who fronts for them before the city government . Wouldn't the Ft• Worth Star Telegram and WRAP love to extend their powerful arm into every major community by Cable TV, when they have been unable to do so by more accepted means. And particularly in Wichita Falls they would like to re-extend that arm. This used to be their market through WRAP Radio, however, with the advent of television they lost it because it became an isolated and separate market to itself. Second, North Texas T'✓ Cable Systems, represented locally by Bill Thacker, includes interest holders State Senator Tom Creightor, from Mineral Wells; John Campbell, a principal in the CAS Manufacturing Company of Dallas, which manufactures Cable TV equipment; and others. A very interesting point here is the connection also of Senator Tom Creighton and John Campbell, as principals in a corporation known as Dal-Worth Microwave, Inc . Dal-Worth in 1966 applied to the Federal Communications Commission to construct microwave relay towers that would tie a central program originating center located in Dallas-Ft . Worth in with a number of now existing microwave common carrier systems. In brief, the purpose of this organization is to feed self-originated programs to microwave systems throughout the state, which in turn would deliver these programs to local CATV systems, which in turn would deliver the programs by wire to their customers. This application by Dal-Worth made the entire television broadcast industry stand up and take notice . This was the first application of its nature and most obviously the first outward attempt to move in the direction of PURE PAID TV. The ramifications of this application are astounding, and it is too lengthy a problem to go into at this time. The F.C.C. was bombarded 1 -12- with filings of protest . Basically, it all boils down to PURE PAY TV, and a strong outward movement in that direction. Is it not interesting that all applications are supported by money outside the city? Why is there not just one group which represents 100% Wichita Falls interests and money? Why are these outside groups so interested in Wichita Falls? This question must beweighed carefully now . True, individual applications are not being considered at this time, but when all applications indicate such obvious similarities as this, it can not be overlooked . The council must consider all eventualities before deciding on an issue as important as this and one which might easily one day affect each and eve citizen in our community. 9 Y Y every Y i This food for thought leads us to the big issue, and possibly the basic answer to the above questions -- PURE PAY TV. All CATV is considered Pay TV, since the viewer is required to pay a monthly charge for his television service; but PURE PAY TV is that form of Pay TV j where the viewer is charged extra for individual programs such as movies, sporting events, etc. This is universally recognized by all (including Congress and the F.C.C.) as the greatest danger to the continuance of our system of free television, and if not stunted from growth in the beginning the result will most certainly be the demise of our free television system. Of this there is no question! Cable TV will have no easy time here in Wichita Falls in its early years, but these people are willing to stand their losses now, betting on the future and growth of this very lucrative PURE PAY TV. Is the Council acting in the best interest of the city for this reason alone by awarding a CATV franchise now for a mere 2 to 4% fee, when in later k years it could quite possibly command a much larger fee? Now, you can be sure that each and every applicant will stand before this council and declare that he has no such intentions, and to prove it he will invite the Council, if they should decide to award a franchise, to carefully word the ordinance so that PURE PAY TV would be specifically ptOklblted under eny citeuMsteMce&. Arid they will tilso tell you tl,dt, east ell, ell pole tentel contracts from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company clearly and specifically prohibit the use of telephone company poles and facilities for PURE PAY TV; but you know, I know, and most importantly they know that councils change, city ordinances can be changed, and contracts can be rewritten, -13- Purely and simply, PURE PAY TV is the frosting on the cake and will be the ultimate result of CAN in a city the size of Wichita Falls. ICI I V II Much has been done to establish Wichita Falls as a trade center for the North Central Texas and Southern Oklahoma area. Television's extensive coverage throughout the entire area has been instrumental in the establishment of our trade area boundaries. Residents in our smaller surrounding communities have been repeatedly and effectively exposed to goods and services available here in the hub of the trade area. Television has extended the trading arm of the Wichita Falls business establishments. CATV, however, actually brings about the opposite -- market shrinkage . It repeats the sig- nals of big market stations and thereby extends their coverage arm and enlarges their market size. The smaller penetrated market becomes even a smaller market since it is now absorbed by the larger one, and begins to lose its identity. Markets are now defined by the area and I i size of its TV coverage . The smaller market becomes less important as a market place and this is reflected by the shrinkage of its market boundaries by large nationwide firms. This is reflected not merely in advertising, but in jobbing, distribution, and retailing. CATV also provides the means by which our local retailers not only must compete among them- selves, but must now contend with competing retailers from larger cities. In our case CATV will extend the long arm of the Dallas-Ft. Worth trade area right into the heart of Wichita Falls. Unfortunately, many Wichitans today trade in Dallas. Why should they receive an engraved invitation to do so? CATV offers this encouragement, and with today's fast cars and modern highways trading in Dallas has become extremely easy. Our merchants do not fear competition, nor do we. They have their competition and plenty of it right here among themselves. So does the television industry. It is the healthy kind of competition that reaps benefits for all, but should the theory of competition be stretched to the point that it drains money and customers from your city and injures your own television service? It is most people's dream to see Wichita Falls grow and prosper. Is it not yours? Of course it is, and your position plays an integral part in our city's future . If it means protecting your own, then you should do it. If it means prohibiting encroachment into our territory, then you should do it. Remember, as an elected official your first responsibility is to your own city. You have been elected by the people of Wichita Falls, entrusted with the authority to act in their best interest for their common g ood. The City Council of Altus is charged by their constituents with the responsibility to act in the best interest of Altus. Like so, Vernon; like so, Henrietta, like so, Olney; and like so in every city large and small . fill r vl The argument has been raised that you have no right to keep CAN out and doing so would be an intervention in free enterprise. To the contrary, you are indeed fortunate to be in the enviable position of being able to determine whether or not CAN should be allowed to operate within the confines of the city you serve. Think what it would be like if you had no such authority, and one or one-hundred CAN systems were constructed and operated without control, protection, or regulation. The results are obvious. The FX.C . with all its new regulatory authority still has left the power to grant or not to grant in the hands of the local city government. For they are aware that local situations are different and the council and its constituents are in the best position to judge for themselves. The F.C.C. is depending on city councils throughout the nation to prudently and carefully extend its broadcast system only where there is a need or a lack of existing service, and where such extension does not disrupt its originally established table of channel assignments and allocations. Is this unnatural interference in free enterprise? What if the city could not control or decide how many and what kinds of public utilities should be made available to its citizens? What if the Civil Aeronautics Board could not control competition of airlines servicing the same cities and duplication of their routes? What if the Securities Exchange Commission could not closely control and scrutinize corporations who offer their stock for public sale? What if the Interstate Commerce Commission could not control rates and transportation practices between states? What if the Railroad Commission could not set oil production allowances and regulate drilling and exploration practices? And what if the Federal Communications Commission could not control and regulate the broadcasting industry? Complete chaos would result. Government intervention, whether we like it or not, into free enterprise is oftentimes a basic reason why free enterprise continues to exist and prosper. How many times does our government regulate and prohibit one to protect another in order that the public interest best be served? VII There are other problems, too . Our opposition to CAN in Wichita Falls remains firm even after the F,C.C. assumed regulatory authority over the CAN industry and thereby offered some relief, though limited in scope . The F.C.C. by necessity of logistics has taken the stand that they will not interfere with CAN in the secondary markets as long as the operator complies with their basic rules covering same day, non-duplication of programs and carrying without material degradation in quality signals of all local stations within whose Grade B Contour the system is located. Why they have by necessity, not choice, taken this stand has been reviewed above. This raises T s ra s s the problem therefore of how a CAN system will be effectively policed and by whom. Even the FoC.C. has become ineffective in handling the many complaints filed against CATV operations which have refused to comply for one reason or another with the new regulations. They are so bogged down with complaints and corresponding requests for waivers that it may be years before their docket is cleared to the point that they will be able to keep pace with the complaints as they are filed, and act upon them in a reasonable amount of time . This offers little relief to the broadcaster, whose programs have been duplicated or whose signal has been degraded. And in addition the F.C.C.'s jurisdictional authority over the CAN industry is being tested in our courts today in the form of a CAN industry planned test case . If this were decided unfavorable to the F.C.C., then this agency would be helpless until Congress acted to give it its rightful power, and authority. Many things could happen in this period of time and the damage that might result could never be undone . tt Your own City Attorney has agreed that his office has neither the time nor the manpower to effectively police a CATV system and to assure that its initial promises are fulfilled and the terms of its related CATV ordinance are complied with . Suspected irregularities would be most difficult to prove and remedy since it would take experts in the field and highly trained tech- nicians to detect many of the problems and to assure correction. For example, careful and proper shielding is necessary at the point where a house drop is spliced ° i into the main cable . If this is not done properly, a signal is transmitted or radiated from the connection and will substantially interfere with the sets in homes close b still receiving their Y g -18- television off the air. CATV operators have been known to have, not accidentally, failed to properly shield these splices. After all, those who are attempting to continue to enjoy free television off the air now find their picture noticeably inferior to that of their neighbor who is "hooked-up" to the cable . His interest in hooking up is then increased. Who is going to effectively police a system who "accidentally" degrades the quality of the local stations? All it takes is the slight turn of one little knob. How will the programming of a CAN operator be policed if the system is allowed to originate its own? And how will disputes be settled? Does the city have the time, money or desire to enforce its regulations over CATV in the courts? These are al formidable problems that present a need for serious consideration -- now, before it's too late. i r Vill The F.C.C. has made its position clear. The decision and responsibility lays squarely on your shoulders. The F.C.C. will not do it for you. The power to grant or not to grant a franchise remains in your hands, and a sobering responsibility it isl Your responsibility is thus clear -- is it or is it not in the best interest of all of your con- stituents, your city, and your television stations to permit Cable TV the right to operate within the city? Is the increased choice of service so great that you are willing to risk the survival and continuance of your free television enterprise that now exists? Your decision cannot be based solely on your agreement or disagreement with our strong convictions that CATV in Wichita Falls could ultimately cause the demise of your local television stations. But just as important, if these stations' revenues ore substantially reduced because of this CATV activity, so that they do not have the financial stability or capability to program effectively and to keep pace with progressive technological changes and advances, the result is just as detrimental to the public interest as if the station had failed financially and closed its doors. Let me give you a recent example of how a healthy television atmosphere affects you and our citizens. Without going into considerable research I can say without hesitation that Wichita Falls is one of the few secondary markets, and probably the smallest of all, that is served by three television stations capable of televising local studio color, and fully color equipped . In the last year this station alone ploughed back more money than is represented by many years of its profits into the purchasing of the finest color equipment available on the market today. This equipment is the most costly available, and it cost us no less than a television station in the largest market would pay for it. Yet we were able to provide it . However, if our profits had been substantially reduced because of unreasonable competition from CAN this would have never been possible. As well, we are proud of our personnel and their high quality and character. People of this caliber do not come cheap, but we have been able to acquire them and retain them because we have fairly and generously shared the profits of our station with them. We will fight to the last before we will be forced to offer a second class service. -20- In 1952 the F.C.C. established the television table of assignments. The Commission thus determined that the public interest would best be served by a nationwide system of local and area stations, which would serve the public in their communities and areas which would be particularly attuned to local and area needs and interests; and which would provide, insofar as possible consistent with these aims, multiple services. Multiple television service to communities was a goal of high priority, but this goal was expressly subordinated to providing as many communities that could support a local television service with service of its own, rather than concentrating the majority of the scarce channels in the large metropolitan areas. The F.C.C. permanently assigned channels 3 6 18 and 24 to Wichita Falls and channel 7 P Y 9 � , to Wichita Falls--Lawton . They are your property. Our channel,:which belongs to you and the people of our community, is on loan to us and is placed in our trust to operate in the best interest of all . Therefore, you must now decide the future or fate of this valuable asset which should be listed on your balance sheet. If you place little value on this possession, then your decision is an easy one; but on the other hand, if you recognize this station's position and importance and what it would be like in Wichita Falls without free local television or even a television service of limited nature, your decision is also an easy one . Because we are asking you not to allow this parasitic type industry in our city, it is said that we are selfish and are trying to suppress competition . We have been accused of attempting to deprive our citizens of a "vast new television service," and just for our own personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth . It is not a question of whether our citizens should have a choice of television service, but a question as to the nature of the choice. Should their choice largely be among non-local, distant, big city stations imported by CATV and all available for a fee. Or should this choice remain among present and future area and local stations serving the needs and desires of the community, and all available for free . If you were to allow CATV into our community, today we may have a choice, but tomorrow we may not. What kind of gamble is this when you are gambling with something so valuable and sacred as public interest? Are we being selfish when we ask that you not take a course of action that could, as a result of -21- �I permanent injury to us, deprive all of our citizens of a first class free television service, and particularly those of lesser means who are most dependent on it? IF THEN, FOR ALL THIS WE ARE ACCUSED OF BEING SELFISH, WE PROUDLY ADMIT TO THE CHARGE, I I ! III IX F.C.C. Commissioner Kenneth H . Cox in his Statement, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part, to the "Second Report and Order" wisely recommended that a five year moratorium be imposed upon CAN, providing enough time for the many unanswered problems to be solved. Possibly Commissioner Cox's recommendation has merit. Because of the uncertainness and in- stability of the CATV industry today, we urge that you consider any action at this time to be premature and altogether too risky to chance . Time should be provided to answer many of the questions raised and find a solution to problems such as these; (1) A more substantial assessment of the full impact of CATV upon the broad- casting industry, and the laying of proper ground rules that would assure a healthy coexistance of both. (2) It would allow the CAN industry time to mature and settle down to a more stable and orderly growth, and find its proper and appropriate niche in our economy. Its explosive development thus far has been without plan, uncontrolled, and unrestricted. 3 Pending and planned legislation, if enacted will have a lasting effect on the O 9 p 9 � 9 Nfo industries and may change them considerably. For example, H .R. Bill #1328610', among other solid restrictions, would have specifically prohibited program origination and closed circuit programming by CATV. More than likely it would have applied only to new systems, guaranteeing "Grandfather" immunity to existing systems. This bill is expected to be reintroduced with strong chance of passage . Inclusion of this restriction in your ordinance would not be a dependable safeguard . This needs and cries out for Congressional action. Ordinances can be changed, laws are generally not . (4) It would allow time enough for the courts to decide the test case now pending, which questions the F.C.C.'s jurisdictional authority over CATV. 10. H.R. #13286 was the bi I I conf i rmi ng the F.C.C.'s authority over CATV and was reported out of the House Commerce Committee in the last session of Congress, but was not acted upon before adjournment. -23- (5) It could provide enough time for CATV to be brought under the some regulations as broadcast television, involving such problems as political broadcasting, equal time and the handling of controversial issues, gambling and lottery restrictions, program content, advertising standards, ownership requirements, etc. In the interim five-year period the F.C.C. will have reduced its overcrowded docket to the point where complaints of noncom- pliance against CATV systems will effectively and rapidly be resolved, thus shoring up of what protection has already been guaranteed to the broadcaster. (6) The question of property rights will be resolved and appropriate copyright legislation will be enacted. (7) It would provide enough time for Congress' All-Channel Set legislation to build a large enough base of UHF sets that UHF, both commercial and educational, could develop in our community. (8) The F.C.C. protects the top 100 markets against encroachment by CATV. Wichita Falls is ranked 124th, but the Wichita Falls market which includes Lawton, Oklahoma, is growing. With new industry our prospects ros ects of a bright i future look excellent. It is not inconceivable, and more appropriately a strong possibility, that this market will progress into the top 100 markets in the not too distant future. If you were to allow CATV to begin operations prematurely then you have rendered a disservice to our community. You would have allowed CATV to germinate in a locale where the F.C.C. says it should not be. The F.C.C. has consented to "Grandfather" immunity to those systems which were in existance before the regulations of the "Second Report and Order" went into effect. The same would be true here. You can- not take away what you have given . When Wichita Falls moves into the pro- tected top 100, have you not unnecessarily penalized your local existing television indusfry by acting too hastily? (9) The only major Texas cities which have been granted a CATV franchise are Austin, Abilene-Sweetwater, Lubbock, Waco, and Tyler. None of these cities has full television service from all three networks. Abilene-Sweetwater, � I -24- Lubbock, and Waco are served by only two stations. Austin is served by one VHF and one UHF. Tyler is served just by one . What is the hurry in Wichita Falls? None of the other comparable cities in our state have shown any indication to rush into this field. In no market in the state of Texas, which is served by three stations, has a CATV been granted. (10) By granting a franchise now the city will settle for a smaller fee, where, by waiting they could possibly command a much higher fee. (11) Any hastily taken action might result unintentionally in laying the foundation for a PURE PAY TV system. This deserves close scrutiny and this moratorium period would provide the needed time to properly study and watch its growth, (12) And finally and most importantly, it will provide you with adequate time to study, watch, and analyze CATV and its operations to determine if you really ever want to allow it in our city. Other cities have seen the merits in this course of action. There are too many unknowns, and the risks are too great to act today with any comfort of knowing that the right thing has been done. When the wrong action might jeopardize the rights of our citizens and have a lasting effect on something that is theirs, time becomes of little importance. It is better to be late and right than to act hastily and later regret your actions. Your careful consideration is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, WICHTEX RADIO AND-TELEVISION CO., INC. III (2nan - By° _ ,..,A..A, a President I an an, Jr. Vice Presi lent I � Lti�M� � I How ar H . Fry - ice Presi ent May 1, 1967 f PHONa (817) 70 6.0111 TOM K DANAHER d 2311 JACKS©ORO HIGHWAY WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS 76302 February 8 , 1967 R f i Mayor R.C. Rancier City Offices Municipal Atiditorium Wichita Falls , Texas Dear Mayor Rancier: With regard to the Community Antenna Television (CATO hearing, to be held February 20, 1967 , I feel grateful for the opportunity to again present to the Board of Aldermen of Wichita Falls my views and plans in the event my company, United Cable Television Co. , is awarded a franchise to do business in Wichita Falls. My presentation will be short, in layman's language and will cover only my operation plan in the event of being awarded a franchise. Again, thank you for this opportunity to present my plan in bringing this worthwhile industry to our city. Sincerly ,yours, Tom H. Danaher 4 THD/kb 0 . r I N T E R N AT Z O N A L C O R P O R AT I O N 2000 Sinner Arentie,Los Angeles,California 90025 BR 2-7768 GR 8-7761 William C.Rubinstein/Vice President April 26, 1967 Mr. Jack Davis City Manager City Hall Wichita Falls, Texas 76307 Dear Mr. Davis: In response to your letter of March 7, 1967, International Telemeter Corporation, a subsidiary of Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. of Houston, Texas, submits the following comments on the advantages of community antenna television for Wichita Falls. What can CATV bring to Wichita Falls? CATV, or community antenna television, can bring Wichita Falls up to nine channels of television signals which are not now available to its citizens. These nine channels would include the following: Channel 4 Dallas, Texas Channel 8 Dallas, Texas Channel 5 Dallas, Texas Channel 11 Dallas, Texas , Channel 13 Dallas, Texas Channel 5 Los Angeles, California Channel 9 Los Angeles, California Channel 11 Los Angeles, California Channel 13 Los Angeles, California In addition, to these signals community antenna television can bring a continuoys news channel, a weather channel and a stock quotation channel to Wichita Falls. _urthermore, in order to supply improved reception of both black and white and color television programs the community antenna television system in Wichita Fulls will carry the presently available local channels; Channel 3 and Channel 6 of Wichita Falls and Channel 7 of Lawton, Oklahoma. With this television programming available to its citizens, Wichita Falls will have more television than any other city in the United States. There will be a minimum of program duplication on the various channels carried in Wichita Falls since at least one half of them will come from independent non-network i stations. Mr. Jack Davis -2- April 26, 1967 Hot,! will CATV work in Wichita Falls? As soon as a franchise is awarded to International Telemeter Corporation in Wichita Falls, our company will make formal application to the Federal Govern- ment for microwave channels which will carry the Dallas and Los Angeles stations into the community. At the termination of the microwave link in Wichita Falls, the signals will be converted to suitable television channels and from this point they will be carried via coaxial cables to homes of subscribers. In addition, at International Telemeter Corporation's studio in Wichita Falls, local news and local events of interest will be televised along with weather information and inserted in the cable network on television channels. It will also be possible to provide channel space for the use of the local school system if this is desired. Such facilities are provided today by many CATV systems. CATV systems in the past have been restricted to the use of only twelve channels, but recent technological developments at International Telemeter Corporation make it possible to carry up to twenty-five channels on a cable system. The precise number of channels to be carried and the equipment to be used will be specified in our company's franchise proposal. Summary of Benefits 1. At least nine additional television channels to be enjoyed by the home- owners of Wichita Falls. 2. Better color reception on all channels. 3. Better and more FM reception. 4. Profits to the City of Wichita Falls. 5. Elimination of hazardous and expensive roof antennas. 6. Complete weather information as it occurs. 7. Local originating channel for Wichita Falls only. 8. Future possibility of educational television between your local schools for the betterment of your children's education. 9. Better business. 10. Better industrial climate. 11. Employment of local people. Mr. Jack Davis -3- April 26, 1967 Additional Television Channels Additional television channels would permit the subscribers to see what interested them; for example, more movies, more sports, features, news, travel or educational programming. The residents of Wichita Falls could get the most from their valuable viewing time. All of the above would be free from snow, ghosts, jumpy streaked or washed-out pictures, caused by weak signals and local signal interference. Local interference such as car ignitions, electric appliances, radio transmitters, airplane flutter, neon signs, arc welding and many others will be eliminated. Better Color Reception Better color reception would be received on all television channels. Even minor signal distortion can be disturbing to color pictures. Strong trouble free reception on all channels is a must. Better And More FM Reception A greater choice of FM channels would be selected. Besides the two existing FM channels which are transmitted at the present time in Wichita Falls, others may be added to the system, including complete stereophonic trans- mission. This may be accomplished without inducing distortion into the FM receivers of subscribers that is so common with FM received over great distances. Profits To The City Of Wichita Falls More tax income to the city. Cable television installations require sizeable and taxable investments. A mutually agreeable franchise tax would be paid to the city. This tax usually is based upon the gross receipts of the system, thus enhancing the city treasury. Elimination Of Roof Antennas L. The unsightly forest of roof-top antennas disappear. 2. Forget about falling hazards, roof damage, personal injury or fire danger. 3. 'Forget about additional wiring from existing antennas when adding addi- tional sets or color receivers to the home. 4. No longer will expensive rotor or two or more antennas be needed with a switch in order to receive television channels from opposite directions. 5. Lead-in wire replacement which is required approximately every five years is eliminated. Mr. Jack Davis -4- April 26, 1967 I Time And Weather Channels Immediate weather information would be available to all subscribers. This weather information would include temperature, wind direction, wind velocity, barometric pressure and time of day. This information is quite helpful to people who depend on the out-of-doors for their livelihood. Local Originating Facilities One of the channels on the system could be used as a local public service channel on which no advertising would be sold. City Council meetings, Little League events and programming of local interest only would be pro- vided. This differs from broadcasting of a television station in that a television station must program with advertising to every receiver within their reception range and much of the subject matter is of no local interest to the town which the cable system is serving. Remembering that a television channel only has so many hours in a day to appeal to a much larger area, and it derives its entire revenue from the amount of advertising that it sells and the coverage area, whereas the cable system provides this origination channel as strictly a public service and does not derive revenue from this service. Educational Channels Closed circuit television channels could be provided between each and every one of the Wichita Falls schools, thus making better use of a teacher's special training in a particular subject. On a cable system, more than one educational channel can be carried at a time. Several subjects can be sent to the individual schools simultaneously. This will cause no inter- ference or degradation to the commercial channels. Better Business Better television reception creates more television interest, thus local , television dealer's sales and services are increased. More television receivers are sold. With more FM reception available high-fidelity and stereophonic sales and service also increase. This will also increase the sales and service of color television receivers for the local dealers. Better Industrial Climate An area with good television reception is an important employee consideration, in that cable television would be an added attraction to anyone considering a move to Wichita Falls. Better Employment Substantial payroll and purchases by the cable company will add to the community progress. I • I Mr. Jack Davis -5- April 26, 1967 Individual residents may subscribe to the above service or not, as they see fit. There is no interference by CATV with regular television or FM recep- tion. People who desire better reception, more channels to view and to listen to, pay a nominal installation fee and a small service charge. Subscribers may discontinue the cable service at any time, and they may go back to their previous viewing habits if they desire. Community antenna television systems are now operating in some 2,000 specific areas through- out the United States and there is substantial growth predicted for this service in the years ahead. We are sure that there will be some questions that will arise regarding this report. International Telemeter Corporation will have a representative at the public hearing in Wichita Falls on May 15th. Thank you for allowing us to submit this report. Respectfully, INTERNATIONAL TELEMETER CORPORATION William C. Rubinstein President WCR:wa Copies to: Mr. R. C. Rancier, Mayor Mr. R. Kenneth Hill, Alderman Mr. James M. Davis, Alderman Mr. Leroy Daniel, Alderman Mr. Max Kruger, Alderman Mr. Cletus C. Schenk, Alderman Mr. S. M. Lyons, Alderman Mr. Bob Hughey, Asst. City Manager Mr. H. P. Hodge, Jr., City Attorney Mrs. Wilma J. Thomas, City Clerk . FRI13ERG & PARISH ATTORNCYs•AT•LAW •10 NAMILTON �UILDINO y WIC► 'TA PALL6, TmxAe , J.WALTER rR1et110 ELMS" N. AANISH . TtLt/MIONs 7!!-0!N March 15, 1967. Honorable Richard Rancier, Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of Wichita Falls, Wichita Falls, Texas Gentlemen: Please consider this as the formal application of T. V. Cable of Wichita Falls, Inc., for a non-exclusive franchise to construct and operate a community television antenna system in Wichita Falls, Texas. We are attaching a•brochure to this letter for the information and ' guidance of the City Officials. You will ,note 'that in Section 6(b) of the Resolution, a proposed City Ordinance, it is stated "Neither the granting of this license nor any of the provisions contained herein shall be construed to prevent the City ¢ from granting any identical, or similar, license to any person or cor- poration other than the Grantee." American Cable T. V. Inc. , of Phoenix, Arizona, will own stock in this company and will supervise the construction and operation tion o .„ p f the proposed system. We believe that this P , • his company can furnish the best qualified personnel for the planning, construction and operation of the system that A is available anywhere in the United States., We submit that the AME CO Inc equipment is the best available. We will be happy to bring qualified experts to Wichita Falls for a die- r cussion with City Officials at any time that the Citymight des ire. , � 1 8 We believe that the 'Micro-wave" feature of our brochure will be of interest to members of the Council. Kindly advise the writer if you should desire technical information from any of the experts. Yours very truly, ` Elmer H. 1 ETIP:sty Enc. NORTH TEXAS TV CABLE SYSTEMS P . 0. BOX 88 Wichita Falls, Texas April 30 , 1967 Mayor R. C . Rancier Alderman Leroy Daniel Alderman Kenneth Hill Alderman James M. Davis Alderman Scrog Lyons Alderman Max Kruger Alderman Cletus Schenk IN RE': Public Hearing on CATV, May 15, 1967 Gentlemen: In behalf of the applicants under the name of North Texas TV Cable Systems (to be incorporated) , I urge that the City of Wichita Falls grant a franchise for a cable television system for our city. I believe that the following facts substantiate this position. Free Enterprise First, I would ask if this city government directly or indirectly prohibits any legitimate business from operating in our community? I believe that the encouragement of free enterprise has been and should continue to be a policy of our city government. Many businesses use the public rights of ways granted to the city and only a few require franchising. The use of these public rights of way by cable television would permit this business enterprise to bring a service on a voluntary basis to those citizens who wish such service. April 30, 1967 Page 2 The Consumer In the debate over CATV, one individual has been largely ignored - the consumer . No one person can speak for .the television-watching public, but it is beyond dispute that many of those who do watch are dissatisfied with what they are getting now. What we have now may be described as the best television system possible, only because it is the only system with which we have had any experience . CATV may not be the answer, although testimony from many cities which have it amply proves it is an improvement in quality, diversity, and in providing new, specialized programs and in particular educational programs . What CATV can do for our citizens remains an open ques- tion. But it will never be answered until CATV is given a chance. Television, as all communications media, is in a highly flexible state. No one can predict what will evolve from the fantastic satellite system, pay-TV, cable-TV, educational- TV, networks, etc . But it takes no crystal ball to realize that change is coming. No one is under any compulsion to hook on to cable television if and when it becomes available. Those who de- sire to do so should have the opportunity, and that's the basic justification for the city ' s approval of a CATV fran- chise. The Federal Communications Commission The Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C. ) has assumed jurisdiction over all CATV systems, and in particular as to relations between television stations and CATV. April 30, 1967 Page 3 F.C.C . regulations presently require that before a new CATV system can commence service in any new area , the CATV operator must comply with a "notification" procedure pre- scribed under Section 74. 1105 of the F ..C.C . Rules (copy attached) . Thus, prior to commencing its services, a new CATV operator must give notification to all "local " televi- sion stations (Channels 3-6-7) and also to notify the F.C.C . After notification, the CATV system may not commence its service for a period of 30 days within which any of the local television stations may appeal to the F.C .C . for relief. Section 74. 1109 of the F.C .C . Rules (copy attached) sets forth the procedures prescribed to obtain such relief; and it will be noted that upon the filing of a complaint with the F.C.C . by a local television station, the CATV service may not be commenced until the F.C .C . has an opportunity to rule upon the complaint. Therefore , the F.C.C. which grants all television sta- tion licenses provides the procedure for such protection as is necessary for local television. The success of an appeal by a local television station to the F.C.C. will depend on the merits of the complaint. As to the argument that relief is unlikely under this procedure, I would suggest that such persons compare it to the right of any citizen to apply for a present local tele- vision license when it is renewed each three years. It will depend on the merits of the application. CATV The prior public hearing and the several applications have clearly pointed out the benefits of CATV. Attached is a new booklet on "Cable TV" which will be of interest to you. I will not repeat the prior statements, but would urge that you give particular consideration to the education- al possibilities of CATV for our community. April' 30, 1967 Page 4 Conclusion . The matter of the granting of a CATV franchise in our city is a governmental function which should be decided only by the duly elected representatives of our citizens - This Board of Aldermen. Any attempt to determine this matter by a brief study by a small group of individuals should be denied as improper and the opinion of such individuals considered only on the basis of facts presented by them. I believe that our city is progressing and that new business should be encouraged in our city - including CAM I sincerely urge your affirmative and prompt attention to the granting of a CATV franchise. Thank you , Bill Thacker ' RULE,19 AND Ri;GVLATIONS 74,1103 SUBPART K—COMMUNITY ANTENNA collectively, In a normal week during the hours of G to TELEVISION SYSTEMS 11 p.m.,local time, for a total of 14 or more hours (g) Priority. The term "priority" means the r [Subpart Ii ((>i 74.1101-74.1109) as adopted cff. priority among stations established in 1 74.1103(a). i 4-18-66;except for ¢ 74.1103 tchich is cff.ti-17-66 as it" (h) Irulcpcttdcttt station. The term "Independent r pertains to cxistiug operations of nonrrr.icrorcavc CATV station" means a television station which Is not systems and ff 74.1105, 7.f.1107, and 74.1109 tchich are affiliated with any national television neta,ork cff. 3-17-66; 11101)-12] organization. (i) Distant signal. The term "distant signal" i §74.1101 Definitions. means the signal of a television broadcast station which (a) C,ommurrith antcuna tcicvision alistem. The is extended or received beyond the Grade 11 contour term "community antenna television system" ("CATV of that station. system") menns any facility which,in whole or in part, receives directly or Indirectly over the air and amplifies 74-1103 Requirement relating to distribution of tcle- or otherwise modifies the signals transmitting programs vision signals by community antenna television broadcnst s by one or more television station and dis- systems. tributes such signals by wire or cable to subscribing No community antenna television system shall supply o members of the public who pay for such service, but to Its subscribers signals broadcast by one or more f such term shall not include (1) any such facility which television stations, except in accordance with the fol- i serves fewer than 50 subscribers, or (2) any such lowing conditions: facility which serves only the residents of one or more (a) Stations required to be carried. Within the apartment dwellings under common ownership,control, omits of Its channel capacity, any such CATV system jor management, and commercial establishments located shall carry the signals of operating or subsequently r on the premises of such an apartment house. authorized and operating television broadcast and 100 I (b) Telcai,sion station; tclevi.viott broadcast stattmi; watts or higher power translator stations in the fol- ' television translator station. The terms "television lowing order of priority, upon the request of the li- station" and "television broadcast station" mean any censee or permittee of the relevant station; television brondeasting station operating on a channel (1) First, all commercial and noncommercial edu- i regularly assigned to its community by j 73.60G of this entional stations within whose principal community chapter. The term "television translator station" contours the system operates, in whole or in part; means a television broadcast translator station as (2) Second, all commercial and noncommercial edu deflned In 174.701 of this chapter. A television trans entlonal stations within whose Grade A contours the 1 Intor station which is licensed to and rebroadcasts the system operates, in whole or in part; j programing of a television broadcast station within (3) Third, all commercial and noncommercial edu that station's Grade A contour, shell be demed an cational stations within whose Grade E contours the ur e system operates, in whole or in part; extension of the originating station. (4) Fourth, all commerc'al and noncommercial edu- (e) Principal community contour. The term "prin- cational television trans'.-rtor stations operating in the I• eipal community contour" means the signal contour community of the system with 100 watts or higher Jwhich a television station is required to place over Its power. j entire principal community by 6 73.685(a) of this (b) Exception-s. Notbwithstanding the require- chapter. ments of paragraph (a) of this section, t (d) Grade A and Grade B contours. The terms (1) The system need not carry the signal of any "Grade A contour" and "Grade B contour" mean the station, if (i) that station's network programing Is f Held intensity contours defined in f 73.G83(a) of this substantially duplicated by one or more stations of chapter. higher priority, and (ii) carrying it would, because j (e) Network programing. The term "network pro- of limited channel capacity, prevent the system from graming"means the programing supplied by a nationtl carrying the signal of an Independent commercial st.•t- television network organization. tion or a noncommercial educational station. (f) Substantially duplicated. The term "substan- (2) In cases where (1) there are two or more signals •tially duplicated" means regularly duplicated by the of equal priority which substantially duplicate each network programing of one or more stations, singly or other, and (ti) carrying all such signals would, be- J III it �� 7IA10,i COMMULN'TCATiONMi COI1TMISSTON enure of united chnnnel cnpacity, prevent the system program brondenst by such station, on the rntne tiny ns from carrying the signal of nn independent conunerclal Its brondewA by the station, If the CATV opernlor his stntlon or a noncommercial educational station, the received notification from the requesting station of the system area not curry till such substantially duplient- dale and lime of Its broadcast of the progrtnn and the Ing signals, but cony select among them to the extent dnte and time of any broadcast to be deleted,ns soon as necessary to preserve its ability to carry the Agnals possible and in any event no Inter than 48 hours prior of independent commercial or noncommercial educa- to the broadcast to be deleted. Upon request of the tionat stations. CATV system,such notice shall lie given tit least 8 days (3) The system need not carry the signal of any prior to the date of any broadcast to be deleted. television translator station If (1) the system Is carry- (g) Exerptiona. Notwithstanding the requirements I ng the signal of the originating station, or (11) the of pnrngraph (f) of this section. system is within the Grade B or higher priority con- (1) The CATV system need not delete reception of a tour of a stntion carried on the system whose program- network program if, in so doing, it would leave avnil- Ing Is substantially duplicated by the translntor. able for reception by subscribers,tit tiny time,less than (c) Sprcial rcguircnernts in the event of noncarriage. the progrntus of two networks (including those broad- Where the system does not carry the signals of one or cast by any stations whose signals are being carried more stations within whose Grade B or higher priority and whose program exclusivity Is being protected pur- contour it operates, or the signals of one or more 100 suant to the requirements of this section) ; ° watts or higher power translator stations located in Its (2) The system need not delete reception of a net- community, the system Anil offer and maintain, for work program which is scheduled by the network be- each subscriber, nn adequate snitching device to allow tween the hours of G and 11 p.m., eastern time, but Is i the subscriber to choose between cable and noitcable broadcast 1)y the station requesting deletion, in whole f reception, unless the subscriber nIIrrmatively Indicates or In part, outside of the period which would normally In writing that he does not desire this device. be considered prime time for network programing in (d) Manner of carriage. Where the signal of any the time zone Involved; station is required to be cnrried under this section, (3) The system need not delete reception of any (1) The signal shall be carried without material program consisting of the broadcast coverage of a degradation In quality (within the limitations Imposed speech or other event as to which the time of presenta- by the technical state of the art) ; tion Is of special significance, except where the pro- _ (2) The signal shall, upon request of the station gram is being simultaneously broadcast by it station licensee or permittee, be carried on the system on the r chnnnel on which the station is transmittingentitled to program exclusivity; and L (where (4) The system need not delete reception of any practicable without material degradation) ; and (3) The signal shall, upon the request of the station program which would be carried on the system in color licensee or permittee, be carried on the system on no but will be broadcast In black and white by the station j more than one channel. requesting deletion. I (e) Stations entitled to program exclusivity. Any such system which operates,In wholo or in part,within 674.1105 Notification prior to the commencement of -y--. the Grade B or higher priority contour of any com- mercial or noncommercial educational television station No CATV system shall commence operations or com- or within the community of a fourth priority television mence supplying to its subscribers the signal of any j trnnslator station, and which carries the signal of such television broadcast station carried beyond the Grade station shnll, upon request of the station licensee or B contour of that station, unless the system has given permittee, maintain the station's exclusivity as a pro- prior notice of the proposed new service to the licensee grain outlet ngnlnst lower priority or more distant or permittee of any television broadcast station within duplicating signals, but not against signals of equal whose predicted Grade B contour the system operates priority, In the manner and to the extent specified in or will operate, and to the licensee or permittee of any paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. 100 watts or higher power translator station operating (f) Program exctuafvity; extent of proteotion, in the community of the system, and has furnished a Where a station Is entitled to program exclusivity,the copy of each such notification to the Federal Com- OATV system shall, upon the request of the station munications Commission, within sixty (60) days after licensee or permittee, refrain from duplicating any obtaining a franchise or entering Into a lease or other 1 (T.B. III(04)-12) 846 c ' lit l '3 RULES AND REGULATIONS 4 74.]]07 1 r arrangement to use facilities; In any event, no CATV Grade B contour of that station,except upon n showing, \ Ry!4ruu shall commence such operations until thirty approved by the Cominisslnn,that such extension would (:10) tlnys after notice has been given. Such notice be consistent with the public interest., anrd specifically shnil be given by existing systems which propose to the establishment and healthy nad fit Pon lice of televi- ndd new distant strums fit least thirty (30) days prior sion broadcast service In the area. Onnmission air to etrinmenring service and by systeins which propose prove) of a request to extend n signal in the foregoing to extend ldnes into obviously new geographic areas circumstances will by granted where the Commission, } within slxly (414)) dnys after obtaining a franchise or after consideration of the request and ail related mate- entering Into a Icnsc or other arrangement to use rials fit a full evidentiary hearing, determines that the fnellille.v or, where fin new local authorization or con- requisite showing has been made. 7'lie market size trnclunl arrnngemenl Is necessary, at least thirty (30) shall be determined by the rating of flip American days prior to commencing service. Where it is pro- Research Bureau, on the basis of the net weekly circu- pruned to extend the signal of any noncommercial lation for(lie most recent year. ednentionnl television station beyond Its Grade 13 con- (b) A request under paragraph (n) of this section tour into n community with an unoccupied reserved shall be filed after the CATV system has obtained any educational television channel assignment under necessary franchise for operation or has entered into 173.606 of this chapter, the notice shall also be served a )ease or other arrangement to use facilities and shall upon the superintendents of schools in the community set forth the name of the community involved, the date t find county in which the system will operate and the on which a franchise was obtained,the signal or signals flocal, area, and Stale educational television agencies, proposes)to be extended beyond their Grade 11 contours, if any. The notice shall Include the name and address and the spmific reasons why it is urged that such '► of the system, Identification of the community to be extension is consistent v:ith the public interest. Public served, the television signals to be distributed, and notice will be given of the filing of such a request, and the estinnted time operations will continence. Where Interested parties may file a response or statement l a petition with respect to the proposed service is filed within thirty (30) days after such public notice. A t with the Commission, pursuant to Q 74.1109 of this fepiy to such responses or statement may be filed within chapter,within thirty (30) days after notice,new sere- a twenty (20) day period thereafter. The Commission i Ice to subscribers shall not be commenced until after shall designate the request for an evidentiary hearing the Commission's ruling on the petition or on the on Issues to be specified, with the burden of proof and j ^ Interlocutory question of temporary relief pending fur- the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evi- ther procedures; Providcd, however,That service shall Bence upon the CATV system making the request, not be commenced in violation of the terms of any unless otherwise specified by the Commission as to specified temporary relief or of the provisions of particular issues. I j 74.1107 of this chapter. Where no petition pursuant (c) No CATV system, located so as to fall outside to 74.1100 has been tiled within thirty (30) days the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, shall after notice, service may be commenced at any time extend the signal of a television broadcast station thereafter, subject, however, to the provisions of beyond the Grade B contour of that station, where the 74.1107. The Commission, upon Its own motion or pursuant to a !i provisions of this section do not apply petition filed under ¢74.1109, determines, after appro- to any signals which were being supplied to subscribers priato proceedings, that such extension would be Incon- of the CATV system on March 17 1966. sistent with the public interest, taking into account f Norm l: As used In i 74.1105, the term "predicted Grade B particularly the establishment and healthy maintenance contour" means the field Intensity contour defined In i 73.683 (a) of this chapter, the location of which is determined ez- { of television broadcast service in the area. clualvely by means of the calculations prescribed In 173.684: (d) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of of this chapter. this section shall not be applicable to any signals which l were being supplied by a CATV system to Its sub• " r §74.1107 Requirement for showing in evidentiary 1 hearingand Commission a scribers on February 15, 19GG, and pursuant to a approval in top 100 tcle- franchise (where necessary) issued on or'before that vision markets; other procedures. date: Provided, however, That any new franchise or (a) No CATV system operating within the predicted amendment of an existing franchise after February 15, Grade A contour of a television broadcast station In 1000, to operate or extend the operations of the OATV the 100 largest television markets shall extend the system in the same general area does come within the signal of a television broadcast station beyond the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; 1 ' �} 847 (T.S. III(04)-12) r 1 71.i100 Fumi,,RAi, COMMUNICATIONS (i MMISSION N And. prnrfdcd fitr•tlacr,That no CATV system located in relief sought is a clarification or Interpretation of the ) the 100 largc•sl teirvisiou markets,which was supplying rules. 1 to its subscribers on February Irt, 1f1GG,n signal carried (6) Interested persons may submit comments or beyond its Grade It contour, shall extend Its service to opl,nsition to the petition within thirty (30) (lays after new geographical areas where the Commission, upon it has hecn filed. Upon good cause shown in the ited- ix•UtMn filed under §7-1.1109 by a television broadcast Lion, the Commission may, by letter or telegram to station located in the area and after consideration of known interested persons, specify a shorter time for the response of the CATV system and appropriate pro- such submissions. Comments or oppositions shall be ceedings,determine that the public interest,taking into served on petitioner and on all persons listed in pets- account the considerations set forth in the second report tioner's affidavit of service,and shall contain a detailed i 1, FCC full showing, supported by affidavit, of any facts or and order in ilocl:et Nos. 14R9.5, 15214, and 1507 Cry 2'?0, paraagraphs 113-1.19, would be served by nppro- considerations relied upon. prime conditions limiting the geographical extension (c) The petitioner cony file a reply to the comments o[ the system to new areas. In tine event•that an or oppositlolna within twenty (20) days after their evidentiary hearing is held on such a petition, Me submission,which shall be served upon all persons who C(nnmission may also consider, upon the basis of the have filed pleadings and shall also contain a detalled pleadings before it, whether temporary relief pending full showing, supported by affidavit, of any additional the outcome of the hearing Is called for in the public facts or considerations relied upon. Upon good cause i interest, and, if so, the nature of such relief; no CATV shown, the Commission cony specify a shorter time for i system coming within the foregoing provision shall the filing of reply comments. extend its service to new geographical areas in violation (f) The Commission, after 'consideration of the c. r the of tine teens of the specified temporary relief. pleadings, served bye the rrgrant, In whole i)orl interestic i r part, or .'-- §74.1109 Procedures applicable to petitions for waiver denial of the request,or may issue a ruling on the com- of the rules, additional or different requirements plaint or dispute. The Commission may specify other I and rulings on complaints or disputes. procedures,such as oral argument,evidentiary hearing, (a) Upon petition by n CATV system, an applicant, or further written submissions directed to particular i permittee, or licensee of a television broadcast, trans aspects, as it deems appropriate. In the event that an futon, or microwave relay station, or by any other evidentiary hearing is required, the Commission will interested person, the Commission may waive any pro- determine, on the basis of the pleadings and such other - vision of the rules relating to the distribution of tole- procedures as it may specify, whether temporary relief vision broadcast signals by CATV systems, impose should be accorded to any party pending the hearing _ additional or different requirements, or Issue a ruling and the nature of any such temporary relief. Where a i on a connplaint or disputed question. petition involves new service to subscribers (other than (b) The petition may be submitted Informally, by service coming within the provisions of ¢74.1107(it) of letter, but shall be. accompanied by an affidavit of this chapter), the Commission. will expedite its con service oil any CATV system, station licensee, permit- sideration and promptly issue a ruling either on the tee, applicant, or other interested person who may be merits of the petition or on the interlocutory question directly affected if the relief requested In the petition of temporary relief pending further procedures. should be granted. (g) Where a request for temporary relief is con- (c) (1) The petition shall state the relief requested twined in a petition with respect to service coming i and may contain alternative requests. It shall state within the provisions of §74.1107(d) of this chapter, i fully and precisely all pertinent facts and considera- opposition to such request for temporary relief shall be t Lions relied upon to demonstrate the need for the relief Sled within ten (10) days and reply comments within -requested and to support a determination that a grant seven (7) days thereafter. The commission will ex- of such relief would serve the public interest. Factual pedite its consideration of the question of temporary f allegations shall be supported by affidavit of a person relief. or persons with actual knowledge of the facts, and [Subpart K (9¢74.1101-74.1109) as adopted off• exhibits shall be verified by the person who prepares " -6¢ as 4-18-66, except for 174.1103 which is eff. 6-17 them. it (2) A petition for a ruling on a complaint or dis- pertains to ext.gtfnp operatiorw of nonmicrmvave CATV puted question shall set forth all. steps taken by the al/stema and $§74.1105, 74.1107, and 74.1109 rohich are I parties to resolve the problem, except where the only eff. 3 17-66; Ilf(64)-123 i i _- (T.B. III(64)-12) 848. V WICHITA FALLS CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY Wichita Falls, Texas May 1, 1967 Mayor Richard C. Rancier Members of the board of Aldermen Municipal Building Wichita Falls, Texas Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we submit herewith the proposal of Wichita Falls Cable Television Company, Incorporated, y for the construction and operation of a community antenna tele- vision system in Wichita Falls, Texas. rx The proposal of Wichita Falls Cable Television, Inc. , in- cludes the following documents: -$ (1) All of the terms, conditions and commitments of the attached brochure entitled "Wichita Falls Cable Television". (2) All of the terms, conditions and commitments contained ' in the attached suggested ordinance. Additionally, this letter contains facts about cable TV in general; cable TV for Wichita Falls; some reasons the advent of cable TV would be a progressive step for Wichita Falls; facts about owner- ship of Wichita Falls Cable Television Co. , Inc. , and an eight year projection of income for the City of Wichita Falls from the franchise tax placed on cable TV; a construction timetable. Why Cable TV for Wichita Falls With television receivers in almost 100% of the homes in Wichita Falls and these receivers being watched approximately six hours each and every day, the desire for a wider choice in stations, more specialized services (such as weather, news and stock market quotations), 4 and greater diversity in programs is becoming apparent not only in Wichita Falls, but in every city. Viewers who invest up to $600 dollars in a color television receiver want perfect, noise free, color picture. These viewers I'Muld like Lo have some type of pro�;rnmmin- on each channel on their new set, a:, opposed to only three channels that are available under present condition,. We have evolved in the art of watching television from viewing � IIII Mayor Richard C. Rancier Members of .the Board of Aldermen May 1, 1967 Page -2- Howdy Doody on a 13-inch screen in the home of a neighbor to viewing live programs from Europe and Asia via satel'ite trans- mission, while other members of our families may be watching a tour of Monaco in color on another set. To continue to evolve, which the TV viewer will most certainally do, will involve the use of each channel on the set (not ,just three channels) and a nearly perfect picture on each g channel. This can only be accomplished by cable TV. Urban trans Where Cable TV is Now Operating Los Angeles New York City San Diego San Francisco Austin Lubbock Abilene And over 1,770 other cities. Cable TV now reaches 3,100,000 subscribers. Ownership of Wichita Falls Cable Television Co. , Inc. Stockholders are: Times Publishing Company Wichita Falls Times Wichita Falls Record News Carter Publications, Inc. Fort Worth Star Telegram Construction Timetable 1st 3-Months period: Pole attachments agreements entered into with Southwestern Bell Telephone and Texas Electric Service Co. Distribution system designed and strand maps completed. Receiving tower location selected and request for construction permit from Federal Aviation Agency. Necessary data prepared for Southwestern Bell and Texas Electric Service to make arrangements to accom1podate TV cables on their poles. 2nd 3-Months period: Commence construction of distribution syttem. Construction of receiving tower completed. All electronic receiving components and antennas assembled. 3rd 3-Months period: 30% of Wichita Falls covered by distri- bution system. Service to customer begins. f i • / III i Mayor Richard C. Rancier Members of the Board of Aldermen May 1, 1967 Page -3- th -Months period: . 80% of Wichita Falls covered b 4 3 p Y . � distribution system. 6th 3-Months period: Construction of distribution system completed. Income Projection j (30,000 home base) Annual Gross Re- Homes ceipts (C$5 Income Passed Projected per to Year by C-ble Connections Month) City (4%) Ist 201000 2,000 (10%) $ 120,000 $ 410800 2nd 30,000 7,500 ( ,��/) 450 000 18,000 3rd 30,000 10$ 00 (35%) 630,000 25,200 4th 30,000 12,000 (40%) 720*000 28,800 5th 321000 14,400 (45%) 864,000 34,560 kith 33,000 16,500 (50%) 990,000 39,600 7th 33,000 18,150 (55%) 19039,000 43,560 Sth 33,000 19,800 (60%) 1,188,000 47,520 II f- F As expressed to you since we made our application for this franchise, we have a sincere desire to construct the very best cable TV systein in Wichita Falls and to operate that system in the best possible manner thereby bringing to the people of Wichita Falls the finest and most complete television programming and pictures that a cable TV system can offer. Our cable TV company is owned by capable and reputable business people who have an excellent reputation in the field of public service. We feel that his new method of communication will improve our total community through its ability to expand four times the present system of television. I ' Respectfully submitted, . WICHITA FALLS CABLE TELEVISION CO. , INC. by Rhe.1 iToward For the Company i i �:T r r P. O. BOX 2130 • WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS 76307 • TU. (817) 322.69,7 TWX: 910-850-5836 1-WILLIAM E. I I May 1967 i H.R ITUVISION, INC. i Prefidepit and Gencrid Manager Mmond Sale] Repre.renlafivej Mayor R. C. Rancier Ni c n-il)c rs of the City Council ,Trick Davis, City Manager Wichita Falls, Texas We must continue to oppose the establishment of a cable television system in Wichita Falls for the following reasons: This city is already served by the three networks. However, Wichita Falls is not in the magic "top hundred markets" the FCC has chosen to protect from the ruinous effects of cable television. The Federal Communications Commission now prohibits the importation of distant signals into the first hun- dred markets, and this ruling automatically covers most three-station markets. But it does not apply to Wichita Falls, and therefore the burden of policing a cable system is placed on the City Government. We appreciate all the work and research you have done on this issue, and are aware the City Attorney went to Washington, D. C. to obtain more information directly from the Broadcast Bureau of the FCC. Therefore, I do not want to take a lot of time on the technical and economic aspects of free television versus cable tele- vision. I do want to make one point which has never really been made at these hearings. By granting a franchise to any of the current applicants, you will give them the right to go into business using our product without paying for this product. CHANNEL 6 100,000 W1,1111 1039 Ft. Tower OWNED AND OPERATED BY MID-TEXAS BROADCASTING CORP. The citizens of Wichita Falls are not clamoring to pay for cable television. The people who continue to press this city for a franchise :ire t:he orll;r n�isemakcrs, , and they are only interested bc.c:ntse the product they will sell costs them absolutely iN0J'I (lNG ! Once attain KAU7-TV aslc:: you to turn down cable tcic- vision until copywrit,ht laws are passed that will protect our investment in this community and the employees who depend on this station for a li�-clihood. Don't t;iv(� tht•sc rir,ht to ch:irti;(' t(,r uur prc>- duct. . . when it: is now deliverccl to the homes without c•h:ir ,t�e. In the oil business, it is illegal to slant a well under other pcoplcts property. At the present time, opel•ating under antiquated copywright laws and because our market does not fall into the magic top one hundred, we have only the Mayor and City Councilmen of Wichita Falls for protection. Respectfully submitted, ,r William E. Hobbs President & General Manager