Community Video Report (Summer 1974)

program ming: 3 FCC weighing crucial access, originati Two items currently pending before the FCC hold great importance for the immediate future of cable television programming; if past policies are any measure, the public is liable to be the loser. The larger and more comprehensive item is the Commission’s Clarification of Rules and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted April 17 (Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 78). This document significantly alters existing regulations, as a result of the past two years’ regulatory experience at the FCC and the report of the Federal/State-Local Advisory Committee (FSLAC), which had been established with the passage of the original rules. The second matter is Docket 19998, which seeks comments on mandatory local origination by cable systems. The Commission had ordered all CATV systems with 3,500 or more subscribers to begin program origination in 1969. The order was challenged in the courts, and went all the way to the Supreme Court before the authority of the FCC’s rulemaking power was finally established. By then, the FCC had issued its lengthy cable rules, and had begun in effect to ignore the local origination question which it continued doing until the Cable Television Information Center requested a clarification earlier this year. Both of these dockets deal with government requirements forcing the cable system operator to make some sort of local programming viable. Commission sources indicate the Local Origination Docket will come before the Commissioners before the end of the year, and the Commission’s Cable Re-Regulation Task Force—which is considering further changes in the cable rules—will report by November. Reconsideration of Cable Rules Although the April FCC document is formally a ‘“‘clarification’’ of existing rules, it includes enough major changes to be considered a ‘substantive rulemaking’’ without full legal procedure, according to the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners. Most of the Clarification deals with who is to regulate cable, with the FCC serving notice that it intends to maintain the primary role. Cities and states have called this posture “pre-emption” and it promises to be a major conflict in the future. The Commission prohibits local regulation of rates for leased channels, franchise fees above the 3% limit, local requirements to wire schools free, and other local options. The FCC prohibits requiring more than 20 channels on a cable system, and allows cable operators to operate access channels on a “shared” basis among more than one system. The document also asks for comments on technical problems, line extension policy, franchise duration, franchise renewals, and service to cable subscribers. Many of the comments before the Commission address these major questions, particularly since their resolution affects powerful groups who have full-time paid legal staff to file comments. But the Commission’s strongly worded attack against any funding of public access and its operations does not bode well for the future of access. “‘An unfortunate misconception seems to have developed because of some over-expectations at the prospect of free access channels,’’ says the Commission, noting in particular the demands for ‘“‘excessive’ amounts of equipment, programming and engineering personnel, and support for programming. “Too often these extra equipment and personnel demands become franchise bargaining chips rather than serious community access efforts. The document also expresses doubts that any of the franchise fees above 3% and below 5% should be used for access programming, although this issue will be ruled on in another proceeding. The Los Angeles Public Access Project (LAPA) has responded thus, “If the Commission does not feel that the cable operator should be obligated to provide programming support, and if the Commission continues to hold the position that the franchising authority cannot set up a funding structure through franchise fees, where does the Commission see production costs being generated?”’ > oS BS ‘Z Lies Sf IE = The National Black Media Coalition has also filed asking the Commission to reconsider its attitudes toward financing of access channels and toward other issues raised in the Clarification. “Throughout the Clarification’s section on access,” says the NBMC filing, “The Commission seems terribly concerned with the. burden that access may put_on_ the cable systems, but unconcerned with effectively promoting and safeguarding meaningful access to cable for the citizens who “re its users and viewers."’ Claiming that “‘access is as much the cable operator’s responsibility as it is the community’s,"’” NBMC calls on the Commission to state whether it will actually prohibit financial agreements between community groups and cable operators, given the fact that it does not require them. Mandatory Local Origination If the Clarification document’s attitude towards access is worrisome to citizens, the comments on the mandatory local origination question are even more depressing. 90% of those filing comments did not support the proposition that cable operators should be required to produce local programming. <Z Ib BLP” BI RDG SY LIT SHV 4 Z ‘ Ge Bs A 4, ~~ 7 as Z ZA A : = \\ SS Lene’ \Ilustration: Blue Sky/CPF If both this position and the new controls on access financing take effect, the FCC will have eliminated virtually all sources of funds for locally produced programming, except such skimpy sources as foundations or local corporations and institutions. Predictably, the industry claimed financial burden in calling for the elimination of the local origination requirement, citing many worthy programs that have sprung up without legal requirements to that effect. Industry spokesmen say they wish to continue being allowed to originate if they so desire. Cities and states also predictably opposed the FCC rule, since they felt it was a matter for non-federal jurisdiction. The final category includes a variety of “public interest’ filings. Several RAND Corporation staffers and officials at the Cable Television Information Center filed as individuals calling for the elimination of the mandatory local origination provision, in favor of requiring those systems to furnish access requirements. For system owners to provide programming competes with access, which could be supported with a reasonable amount of funding. The Washington Community Video Center suggested that the Commission require all on regs cable systems the choice of either devoting a percentage of their gross receipts (5%) to public access or maintaining a requirement that origination be provided, but at the same level of funding. The Center has raised the point that a commitment to local programming of some sort is the issue. The Office of Communication, United Church of Christ and Consumers Union urged dropping origination requirements and allowing origination only when a system provides competitive access to channels. The National Citizens’ Committee for Broadcasting believes the local origination rule should be dropped but access requirements.strengthened. Among groups favoring the local origination rule are National Black Media Coalition, Philadelphia Community Cable Coalition and the cities of Somerville, and Pittsfield, Mass. By press time of this issue these two dockets will be closed, although groups can continue to send informal support letters to the Executive Secretary, F.C.C., 1919 M Street, N.W. D.C. 20554. Coming up in the fall will be a series of ° dockets dealing with franchising procedures (Nos. 20018-20024) as well as Open Channel’s request for clarification on the question of using franchise fees for access. Even if your group cannot make a formal filing, a simple letter is important. Keep alert, or public access and cable programming will get the federal ax. —Neil Goldstein, Nick DeMartino Broadcast license bill still in Senate Congress is still cousideting the bill that would extend the time and change the terms under which broudcasters receive their licenses from the FCC. Numerous publicinterest groups have testified, and by dead ‘line, more still were waiting. If the bill has not yet passed, you may wish to comment to members of the Senate Commerce Committee on what Citizens Information Project has called “tthe most dangerous piece of broadcasting legislation, and one of the most anti-human rights bills ever to be passed by a house of Congress.”’ For up-to-date details, you may contact Al Kramer, Citizens Information Project, 1346 Conn. Ave, N.W. #920, D.C. 20036. (202) 659-1676. They also have available alternative legislation. Copies of any letters you may send to the Senate should be sent to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 2027 Mass. Ave, NW, D.C. 20036, which is coordinating opposition to the bill. Not part of cable system: Independents program for local audiences Recently, a consulting job brought us to Leonardtown, Md., a rural community southeast of Washington. Twisting country roads finally led us to the offices of WARD.-TV, where we were to unravel several technical problems in their 2” B&W studio. More interesting than our work for the day was learning from Judy Ward, the owner of WARD-TV, about local origination programming produced independently for local ‘cable operators. Ms: Ward has been in that business for nine months, when she and a radio associate started St. Mary’s (County) Cablevision, Inc. Now the sole operator, Judy, with three or four assistants, provides two St. Mary’s county cable systems—a total of 4500 subscribers—with all their local programming. They can watch up to 6 hours of local programs from a menu including local news, ‘sports, religious discussion, specials on local issues (such as a proposed oil refinery), interviews with county political candidates, ‘and the county commissioners’ monthly press conference. Judy says softball league’ games are favorites and contribute greatly to the tremendous acceptance of their local programs. Judy’s arrangement with LexPar Cablevideo and CATV Leonardtown is quite straightforward. She gets her time free, from which she earns advertising revenues. After returning from this experience, I called Brian Owen at the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) to see if he knew of other local origination businesses elsewhere in the U.S.A. I was and am still intrigued with the possibility of local origination standing on its own economic base, independent of cable-operators, whose commitment to local programming is frequently tenuous. Brian referred me to Max Smith of Tiffen Valley Cable T.V. in Archbold, Ohio, who he heard had made a successful business as an independent local programmer. Mr. Smith, who also runs a radio station in Archbold, claims he has had considerable success in the 14 months he has been in business. He and one other employee run the entire show, using fixed cameras, unattended, the news with an emphasis on simple, unadorned live and first generation taped programs. They train and employ high school students for special occasions.: He attributes his success to providing an excellent product and keeping costs down to a bare minimum. While some might consider his $12,500 time-base-corrector a luxury, he insists it is essential to ensure a stable signal throughout the system, which advertisers demand. He provides subscribers with 12-18 hours per week of locally originated programs including some cassette packaged sports and educational films which he rents. Favorite locally produced shows are Big Ten football in the fall, Saturday morning simulcast FM radio and Cable talk/music shows, which involve teenagers. The remarkable fact 1s that Max Smith has. done all he has in a cable system with only 1000 subscribers. If any of our readers know of any interesting and viable local origination projects, please let us know so we can pass on — Grady Watts x i i ib,