Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584 of 755

unless you have some way to control it, you can lose a lot of income as a cable operator. In fact, I've seen some wild estimates as to the losses--or not losses, but to the costs and income that is denied the operators in New York by virtue of the fact that some large apartment building will steal the service rather than pay for it.

The City is helpful in policing that kind of thing, but for every guy who's got a bright idea there's another guy who's got a brighter idea as to how to get around it.

You described very effectively the Florida case as the case in which there is real competition, but I wonder if, in the larger scope--in the national scope--will cable really be a monopoly? Will there be a possibility for competition? If so, how would the FCC--

There is a very, very scary competition for the cable operator, and that's the satellite. I can put a dish in that window that's about eighteen inches in diameter, and if I were on the south side of the building instead of the north side of the building, I could get one hell of a program service out of the sky. Now I'd have to have a special receiver, but that could be--there are a lot of ways to get around that.

If I wanted to start a satellite service in a community instead of spending a lot of capital to wire, I'd spend a lot of capital to buy these units, and you'd pay me back 25 cents a month, to amortize the cost of that dish that's in your window. So, yes, satellite communication could be devastating as far as cable is concerned. Not in places like New York, the reason being I'm on the north side of this building, and there's no way I can get over to the south side, if this were an apartment building, without going through somebody else's apartment.