Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you. Now, either one of you can comment on these questions which were prepared by the staff:

When do you think it would be realistic to think in terms of an interconnected cable television system in this country? Is it primarily a question of financing cable systems in our urban areas that puts such an interconnected system many years in the future?

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Well, I think Wally might better answer to the potential. He's spent a good deal of time studying about it.

Let me say that there is interconnection of cable systems right now, Mr. Chairman. If I can revert to my Time, Inc. hat, we now have a pay-cable network in operation that originates in New York City and extends as far west as central Pennsylvania. It goes up to Corning and Ithaca, N. Y., it goes into New Jersey.

The interconnection in this case is via existing facilities-long lines of American Telephone & Telegraph and microwave systems.

In due course, we hope satellite transmission is going to replace a good portion of that, certainly the more distant portion.

But, interconnection is not only feasible for cable but I'm convinced is inevitable.

Dr. BAER. Yes, that's certainly correct. Interconnection exists today, and it's growing. When the first U.S. domestic satellite systems are placed in service this year and next, there should be opportunities for more extensive networking of existing cable systems.

Representative CLEVELAND. Do you want to explain that to me? I was under the impression that Comsat had these satellite systems. Dr. BAER. Comsat and the International Communications Satellite Consortium transmit communications from the United States to other countries and throughout the world.

Until very recently, no systems for communication satellites within the United States were authorized. In fact, although the United States developed the technology, the Canadians jumped ahead of us in putting up satellites for domestic communications. There are, however, at least five U.S. satellite systems now authorized. The first oneWestern Union's-is due to be launched this month.

Certainly within a year and a half U.S. domestic satellites will be available for cable networking.

Representative CLEVELAND. If you are an expert in this field, can you explain to me who you get permission from to stick one. of those things up there? Is it the U.S. Government, or

Dr. BAER. The Federal Communications Commission licenses all domestic satellites, since they authorize construction of all interstate communications facilities.

Representative CLEVELAND. How is this coordinated with other countries such as Canada-things bumping into each other or interfering?

Dr. BAER. There has to be extensive coordination, and this is done principally between the FCC and the Canadian national regulatory agency. The executive branch, through the Office of Telecommunications Policy, has the responsibility for coordinating the overall U.S. policy position in that regard.

Representative CLEVELAND. Are there many other countries in this besides Canada?

Dr. BAER. As far as domestic satellite systems go, no. Comsat and the Intelsat (Consortium) serve nations throughout the world, and

no more than 50 countries have built ground stations to transmit and receive international satellite communications.

But Canada, as far as I know, has the only domestic system in operation, except for the Soviet Union.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. The Soviet Union has it, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. BAER. They do indeed. There are other countries that have proposed satellite systems. Generally, the larger nations with extensive rural areas to interconnect, such as Australia, Brazil, and India, would profit from satellite communications.

Representative CLEVELAND. I'm not a scientist by any means but when this satellite is up there circling, am I correct that the signals are transmitted to it and they bounce off and come back to wherever you want them to go? Is that the general principle?

Dr. BAER. Yes, sir, the satellite is basically a relay station in space. It's much like a very high microwave transmitter-receiver that can

cover an enormous area.

Representative CLEVELAND. But still, it is in orbit?

Dr. BAER. It is in a special synchronous orbit, which means that it and the Earth orbit with the same period, so that the satellite appears to stay above one spot on the Earth.

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you, you have explained something to me I didn't know before.

Dr. BAER. In regard to cable networking though, the principal issue is how quickly areas of the country will be cabled, and will build up a subscriber base. I think the networking will follow naturally as larger cable systems are built and developed.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. The mere satellite, itself, Mr. Chairman, isn't going to solve all the communications problems. It's a very critical part of it, of course, but once that signal gets back to the ground, you do have the further transmission problem of receiving it. Receiving stations cost is something that has to come down to the reach of cable systems. And then, of course, from the receiving station to the cable station use terrestrial facilities-how much of that will depend on the number of receiving stations in the country.

There are various plans in the process of development for this purpose.

Representative CLEVELAND. The number of homes that have gone on to cable antenna-are they in a sharp upward curve?

Mr. ZORTHIAN. They have been growing. Cable has been growing very substantially at an average of about 15 percent a year. I think that's eased off a little this year. There have been some general economic turndown in the Nation as a whole, but there are a certain amount of financing problems in cables so there has been some slowdown.

But a picture of substantial growth would still be accurate.

Representative CLEVELAND. Is your organization set up to handle the complaint that frequently comes into my congressional office, that such and such a signal cannot be handled by the cable antennas because it's covered by some other station, if you want to watch a particular sporting event, or something like that?

Mr. ZORTHIAN. It's really not a responsibility of our organization, although we receive those complaints-we would direct them to proper parties.

The rules under which cable systems operate, Mr. Chairman, are established by the FCC, and the FCC has seen it proper to give certain

protection to television stations in a home market under certain conditions, including the one you are referring to of nonduplication of programs.

The TV station is protected from imported distant signals of the programs which it carries. These are usually network programs.

Representative CLEVELAND. I don't know about other congressional offices, but this has been a hot ticket from time to time in mine. The Boston Bruins, when they're on a winning streak, for example.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Our cable operators, Mr. Chairman, are equally concerned and perturbed about it and we wish the rule would change. Representative CLEVELAND. If I could find somebody who could help me with this problem, maybe I could dump the problem on them and might just- [Laughter.]

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Well, if you'll give us a call, we can at least give you the answers. We can't solve it, I'm afraid. The FCC has it in its power to do that.

Representative CLEVELAND. Another question for the panel prepared by the staff is: Do you think cable system operators would be willing to set aside one, channel-I believe this may have been answered-set aside one channel for day-long coverage of congressional activities of all sorts, both in committees and on the floor? Does this kind of direct access have to await the development of an interconnected cable system?

Dr. BAER. Mr. Chairman, I believe many cable systems today have excess channels available and in general would be delighted to carry this kind of programing.

However, I suspect that cable operators would prefer not to give a channel totally for congressional television programing, or for any other specific use, but to lease it at perhaps a nominal rate for this purpose. Cable operators look forward to the future when there will be considerably more programing available and a greater demand for different kinds of programing, so that they will be able to use all the capacity they are now building. But I think that they would be generally quite amenable to carrying congressional proceedings on cable systems.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. I'd endorse that, Mr. Chairman, I think the industry as a whole would be very happy to be responsive. The only limitation would be the technical capacity. It depends on the age of the system, how it's been built, as to whether channels are available. But where they are, I think that most cable system owners would like to respond to Congress.

The service need not wait for interconnection, Mr. Chairman. Interconnection is simply a means of distribution. And while interconnection would permit real time coverage, or network coverage, without it if you bicycle tapes-if you have the congressional hearings or sessions as the case may be on the proper tape-they can be shipped to cable systems and the systems would be very happy to run them in those circumstances.

As interconnection develops, it will be an easier thing to do, but I don't think you have to wait for that now.

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you.

I'd like to have the comment of the panel on this question: How will future developments in mass communications, such as video cassettes, affect the teaching process concerning Government and politics in our schools? What steps should Congress be considering now in light of these developments?

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Well, it's a bit difficult to project the exact impact of video cassettes. They obviously are going to give us more flexibility in delivering information to a consumer at time and place of his convenience. Now it can play the same role as a record to a radio station. You can have video cassettes played over cable systems and that is the case today in many circumstances. Many Congressmen use video cassettes for transmitting their weekly reports to their constituents through a cable system.

But beyond that, in due course, in theory at least, video cassettes could be sold or distributed by whatever means direct to the consumer to be played on his video recorder.

That's pretty far down the road before that's a mass audience. Video tape recorders are available, of course, but they are a fairly expensive item, and by and large now, they are institutional and educational rather than in individual households.

As that grows as the recorder becomes cheaper, the tape becomes smaller, less expensive and more programs are available—that market is going to grow.

Obviously, it is not a way of distributing real time events. It would have to be on dated events. But in that capacity, and for that kind of purpose where time is not of the essence, or where the process is largely educational-I think video cassettes do provide a great potential both through cable systems directly or to consumers directly.

Dr. BAER. It's very hard to predict the future development of video cassettes, as Mr. Zorthian has said, but I think you should recognize, Mr. Chairman, that today most educational institutions do have video tape equipment. Almost all universities now use some sort of video playing equipment, and many high schools do as well. I suspect most will within a few years. So the prospect of using video tapes in classes at all levels from high school on up is certainly a realistic one at present. Of course, unless the basic video materials are available they can't be used for history and civics classes, or for any other kind of educational or research purpose. Thus the question this committee and the Congress faces is how and when Congress can begin to make these events available on video tape, so that they can be used now and in the future.

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Do either of you two gentlemen have any further comment you would like to make?

Mr. ZORTHIAN. No, sir.

Dr. BAER. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear this afternoon.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Thank you, sir.

Representative CLEVELAND. This concludes the hearings but the hearings record will be held open, I believe, until May 1-is that correct? Yes.

So if you get any bright thoughts on your way back to your respective offices, you can send up any of those bright thoughts to us within the next week or so.

I don't know about you, but I never conclude a speech or a hearing like this without thinking of something I wish I had said on the way back to my office, or the way back home.

Your statements have been enormously interesting and very factual and you certainly told me sorne things I didn't know. And I'm sure

the committee is very appreciative of it, and I hope we can act on some of those suggestions.

Thank you.

Dr. BAER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZORTHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman METCALF. The joint committee has been advised that other statements will be forthcoming. Without objection, the record will remain open until May 1 to hear such statements. We also have a large volume of correspondence from the general public, plus numerous news articles and editorials, and the staff will include a representative group of these.

CLOSING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN METCALF, JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS ON CONGRESS AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1974

I have some observations I would like to share with my fellow Joint Committee members, with the witnesses and audience here today, and with the listeners to these hearings being broadcast by National Public Radio.

I want to reiterate my belief that these hearings have been unprecedented in focusing the attention of Members of Congress, representatives of the mass communications industry and the American public on the crucial need for Congress to further open itself to the press and broadcast media in order to foster greater public understanding of how the People's Branch of Government functions as an institution.

There have been indications, however, since we began these hearings in February, that misconceptions have arisen in two general areas regarding the motivations of the Joint Committee in conducting these hearings. I want to clarify our positions on these matters so that we may progress with the vital process of opening Congress to the people through the media.

It has been inaccurately perceived by some observers that the primary motivation of the Joint Committee and other Members of Congress during these hearings is to somehow gain for Congress amounts of television and radio air time equal to that granted by the networks to the President and his spokesmen.

While the restoration of the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch is today of prime concern to many Members of Congress and American citizens, the gaining of equal air time by Congress is certainly low on the list of priorities motivating these hearings. Congress must make its deliberations more accessible to the people and the broadcast media are perhaps the most effective vehicle for accomplishing this because it is the fundamental right of the people to know what is going on in their government. It is that simple.

Secondly, there are those who inquire as to whether we are not really seeking to use the media to increase our public popularity and approval of voters. This line of thought is also off-target, for Congress is not seeking a journalistic facelift.