Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431 of 824

interference of one kind or the other. So the only reason that people bought cable in those days was to improve the image and that didn't look like that good a business. And I forget who started Manhattan Cable, but we aquired it fairly early--

Excuse me, but once the cable was down, and you controlled this lower half of Manhattan network--were there then public policy questions of what should be carried over that, should there be a certain percentage of educational-cultural programming, in other words--that kind of policy.

No, there wasn't. At that point the main control over cable was--I think it was being exercised by the FCC. And they didn't seem to think of it in those terms. The question arose later, because as the--Manhattan Cable being one of the earliest, was also one of the most primitive, at least in terms of its ability to carry many channels. And I forget--I think it carried 24, or 30--twenty-four channels. And as cable programming proliferated, there wasn't enough space for us to carry everything. So then the fight started as to--well, you're not carrying a certain system when the people really want it. It's very difficult to determine who the people are and who really wants what.

Did you” have a point of view about it, though, about what you wanted? Or did you really approach the video and the cable, you know, as just another one of the businesses that you were overseeing?