
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, September 23, 1993                   TAG: 9310150352
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: TED OUIMETTE JR.
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CABLE INDUSTRY WANTS TOTAL CONTROL

IMAGINE the nerve of some broadcasters requesting that cable companies pay to carry the signal of the local affiliate. Years ago in a small town in Pennsylvania, an enterprising individual stuck an antenna on top of a mountain to pick up what network broadcasts he could, then sent these signals down a wire and sold the programming to his friends and neighbors in the valley. Voila! Cable delivery and programming theft were born. Cable delivery grew into what we have today, in most cases one cartel per city or town, delivering programming for a price, and many times cable owns much of what it sends down the cable wire. I think that Cox Cable and Lynchburg Cablevision (Time-Life) are protesting too much.

Cable went to Congress with this wonderful idea: "Let's take broadcast signals and send them down a wire to the public. We will be doing them a wonderful service. We can provide the public with hundreds of signals, and the reception will be so much better than the over-the-air signals that some cannot receive."

Congress accepted the gifts (political-action committee money) that the cable industry brought and gave cable a very friendly reception when they came asking for legislation. And, oh boy, did cable ask.

Cable complained to Congress: "You know these local-affiliate signals that we want to put on our wires and deliver for a fee to the citizens? Well, local affiliates are real upset that we are taking their signals and selling them. Congress, do you remember how great an idea you thought we had to run cable? Well, unless we can get these affiliate signals for free, we will not be able to prosper and the public will not be able to get all this wonderful, diverse entertainment and news programming that you liked so much." Congress passed compulsory-license legislation so cable companies could steal the local- affiliate signals and sell them to their subscribers.

Congress gave the cable industry everything it wanted, at the expense of local broadcasters. The industry promised Congress that the country would be wired for multiple systems everywhere, with more than one wire down each street in America, providing programming to the public. This never materialized, because cable knew that control is so much better than competition. Congress ultimately sold out to cable with legislation in 1984, which was designed to ensure cable cartels and written to stop all competition from other technologies, like SMATV and TVRO, that were beginning to threaten the cable- revenue stream. Terms like "territorial programming exclusivity" and "only on cable ads" were created as cable sought ways to prevent competition from existing.

In 1992, the Cable Act was passed to break up the cartel and to promote competition. I was involved in working for legislation with quite a few Congresses, trying to promote healthy competition and equal-pricing structures for competitive delivery methods. I welcomed the 1992 Act because competitive technologies were addressed. Competitors were to be treated on the same terms that cable programmers treated cable systems for pricing, terms, etc.

I watched the cable industry, in anticipation of this legislation, remove programming from the most popular tier purchased by the cable subscriber and create a basic tier (with nothing there), then tier one, tier two, etc. These other tiers were where they placed ESPN, Lifetime and others, knowing beforehand that the legislation would address the basic tier of programming only. This "retiering" was done deliberately, and Congress knew of it. Members of Congress were asked to legislate, reflecting the most popular tier purchased, but it ignored the public - while cable violated the scope of the act by making the basic tier toothless.

The cable subscriber has been paying for the network affiliate signals for years, and cable has been able to lure advertising away from network affiliates and rake in more money. Yes, the affiliates were mad as hell about it, and they had a right to be. But Congress told them to "go sulk behind the barn." Now some networks want to receive money from the cable operator to carry the affiliate programming.

I'm afraid that cable's next move to avoid compliance will be the importation of a network signal in areas where the local affiliate wants payment for what cable has stolen for years, and that Congress will do nothing about it. Cable's agenda is control of access of any signal and always has been. To this end, they will do anything, including trying to get the public incensed at Congress for making cable pay for the local-affiliate feed. I hope the public will not fall for this. Unfortunately, Congress legislates for the money it will bring them. When Congress acts, they create law, and we are stuck with the results of their folly.

\ Ted Ouimette Jr. of Moneta sells and services engineering copiers.

by CNB