Community Video Report (Summer 1974)

cabletv:13 Reader feedback: Telcor’s Steers defends record Editor’s note: The following is an uncut letter from Rockville cable entrepreneur Edward Steers rebutting Becky Clary’s article on CATV in that city (CVR, Vol. 1, No. 4). Since this was the first major response we have printed from a reader, we decided not to edit it, although in the future, we reserve the right to cut for space purposes. As a principal involved in the question of cable television in Rockville and being both referred to, and quoted in, Mrs. Clary’s article ‘“‘Hub-bub in Rockville,’ Volume 1, No. 4, I would like to comment on certain statements which appeared in that article and which are either erroneous or misleading. I do this only for the purpose of hoping to continue a dialogue on an issue of importance to those concerned about CATV, and not to persuade your readers to any particular point of view. If the basic facts are known, the reader is sure to arrive at his own conclusions from an intelligent position. Only then will the true interests of the community be served and an intelligent position arrived at. (1) My first point of concern is the reference to telcoR’s involvement in the city’s election of April 29. TelcoR had meticulously removed itself from any direct participation in the campaign. I was asked by all five CGG candidates to serve as their campaign manager—a position I respectfully refused for obvious reasons relating to potential conflict of interest. Mr. Francis Gospodarek, CGG candidate for Mayor, visited me personally in my house and asked me to serve in this capacity as did the four council candidates. As one who has been involved in the Rockville community long before the formation of telcoR, I regretfully, but necessarily felt compelled to advise all shareholders in telcoR that any involvement in the election campaign would compromise the efforts of the corporation to obtain an objective hearing and most important, could compromise the interests of the community at large and the individuals themselves. ais ior balan, at-the insistence of the CGG candi assi ant campaign manager with the clear und standing of her involvement as a shareholder in telcoR. This proved to be an unfortunate mistake as it was later used against telcoR by some of the very people who sought this individual's involvement. The candidacy of two individuals, who are telcoR shareholders, for council seats is a moot point as they would be, and indeed are, precluded from any participation in cable proceedings and discussions by /aw and conscience, as everyone readily acknowledges. Calls “groundswell” fallacious (2) Your article quotes a city official as indicating that there is lack of a “groundswell” for cable in Rockville. The question of ‘‘groundswell’’ is fallacious. First of all, very few, if any, cable systems since the early days of CATV were developed in response to a “groundswell.” A cable operator entering into business must market his service just as any business must sell a product or service to the public. The debate upon the extent of public acceptance of cable in Rockville can’t get beyond theorizing until the specific services to be provided and the facility of a cable company to market those services are included in the debate as the focal point. os e It is convenient, in the political sense, to justify inaction by decision makers, on occasion, to lack of a “groundswell.” Having been involved in the political life of Rockville for some 10 years, I have never been able to quantify the concept of a “groundswell.”’ Many issues of extreme importance and impact upon our citizens are considered and adopted every year by the decision makers without waiting for a “groundswell.” (3) Citizen testimony at the Public Hearings of July 10, 20 and 30, 1973 (the longest and most heavily attended in city history) were not evenly split as stated in your article. Some 38 persons representing both individuals and organizations testified, of which 31 urged the Mayor and Council to proceed in a deliberate and careful manner to the establishment of a cable system in Rockville. Five residents opposed establishment of a cable system, while two urged a positive procedure coordinated with Montgomery County. It is easy for opponents of teleoR and/or cable generally to charge that those favoring cable were under the influence of telcoR. It is totally false, however, to flippantly charge that those advocating cable were either telcoR members or “‘telcoRconnected,”’ whatever that means. Of course, the Rockville Chamber of Commerce has telcoR members in it. TelcoR itself is a member of the chamber. The demonstrated facts, as supported by written and recorded minutes, show that no teleoR member participated in any policy statement arrived at relative to cable TV presented to the Mayor and Council by any organization, commission or individual, except for telcoR’s formal presentation. TelcoR financial capability defended (4) Roald Schrack is quoted in your article as saying “They [teicoR] have no money.’’ Citizen Schrack knows nothing of telcoR’s financial position or the financial position of any member of telcoR. It is preposterous and irresponsible for him to even speculate as a member of a sitting commission concerned with cable television, on the financial situation and capabilities of a private conporation socks sable. franchise. ae op' ne now and if given the opportunity, we shall detail our financial capability and commitment before the proper authorities with documentation—not through newspapers or private communiques. It would appear that ‘‘Citizen’’ Schrack seeks to cloud the issue of cable TV by interjecting irrelevant issues. Whether a Rockville system has any relationship to Montgomery County or the greater Council of Government area of D.C. in terms of franchising or profit making or programming or rational conspiracy is totally irrelevant to the question of cable TV and what it means to Rockville citizens. Yet “Citizen’’ Schrack is so consummed by local people possibly profiting from a local system, which, by the way, he’s convinced will go bankrupt, that he refuses to debate the merits of cable TV. Claims TelcoR is locally owned (S) It is important to note that 84 per cent of telcoR’s stock is locally owned. We front for no outside interests. Our stockholders list was made a matter of public record immediately upon formation of the corporation and all members of telcoR have since continued to be identified. For example, telcoR Heat gets to DC cable progress The question of cable television in the District of Columbia is once again simmering as District officials go on vacation. City Councilwoman Antoinette Ford and her staff aide Tom Parker, who have held primary responsibility for cable within the Council’s Economic Development Committee, are both out of town for most of July and August. A proposal by the CATV Education Task Force, a citizen group attached to the Ford Committee, has been “shopped around” to a handful of funding sources, and is being revised with the assistance of staff members at Cable Communications Resource Center, a minority cable organization in D.C. The proposal would inaugurate a fourmonth, citywide community education campaign about cable television, focusing on decentralized hearings in all sections of the city. A key action which the citizens’ group has been seeking is full City Council approval of the proposal and fundraising efforts, which citizens consider necessary if funding sources are to consider the group legitimate in the eyes of city officials. Ms. Ford, who had previously committed herself to obtaining Council approval, is postponing presentation of the proposal pending final revisions. City elections, slated for September and November, will mean a shift in Council membership, which could further delay the cable process. Ms. Ford, who has decided against a Council race, will not head the Committee after December. CVR correction on Maryland study CVR reported in the last issue (Vol. 1, .No. 4) that the Maryland State Legislature initiated a two-year study of cable this spring. The State Legislature, in fact, passed no such legislation this spring. A Governor’s Commission, appointed two years ago, is currently studying cable. No report has yet been released. CVR regrets the error. members on city commissions have properly disqualified themselves and withdrew from any discussions of cable that has come before their commissions. Every document prepared. by or under the sponsorship of telcoR has been placed upon the public record by being submitted to the Rockville City clerk. We have sought to make our views known to the Mayor and Council through open and vigorous advocacy of our position. We have constantly been in the forefront of efforts to create public forums. The “anti cable’ lobby breaks down into two groups. One group sincerely believes cable to be a bad thing for Rockville at this time. The other group opposes telcoR as an applicant for reasons ranging from personal animosity toward some members of telcoR, to a belief that a local group operating a cable franchise is not in the best interests of the city. There are of course combinations of the above motivators for the “anti cable” lobby. Make no mistake, “Citizen” Schrack is a member of the anticable lobby. In contrast to telcoR’s open advocacy, ‘‘Citizen” Schrack has for the past year been providing anti cable documents to members of the Mayor and Council privately. None of these documents have been placed upon the public record by “Citizen” Schrack, and, therefore, any inaccuracies contained therein cannot be responded to by those including, but certainly not limited to, teleoR, that would like to see cable established in Rockville. Most disturbing is that Mr. Schrack continued his private lobbying even while serving on the Montgomery County Cable Commission. Denies private lobbying charge These facts concerning private lobbying by anti-cable forces belie the anti-cable/anti-telcoR cry of undue influence by pro-cable forces. Again, the facts are that in every key city council vote on cable to date, the anti-cable lobby has prevailed in that the Mayor and Council have consistently voted not to go forward with cable or at the very least to delay. Indeed, to paraphrase Mr. Schrack, as quoted in your article, he is ‘‘the pot calling the kettel black,” except at this time his “‘pot” has prevailed. (6) I cannot close without correcting the impression that the cable ordinance introduced by Councilman Robert S. Bryan in March of 1974 was a copy of Baltimore County’s ordinance. While the franchising application is indeed “nearly idsntical (as it is to the Soupeil of Govern g atti taken from the Accomnietsstiei of the F.C.C., not Baltimore County. The ordinance, however, is not. It was written by Kenneth W. Gross, a communications attorney, a member of telcoR and a former member of the ad hoc committee on CATV (Rockville). The origin of the ordinance was clearly identified by Councilman Bryan and Mr. Gross and was an attempt on their part to effectively address the many legitimate concerns of sincere citizens at the previous public hearing in establishing and regulating cable TV in Rockville. It is my opinion, and that of many others, that the ordinance is highly innovative and carefully designed to both protect the city and its residents and provide for a truly outstanding cable system for Rockville. Rather than argue its merits, however, it is important for impartial analysis of the ordinance to determine its merit. Most importantly, it was merely introduced—not adopted—to serve as a starting point to gather citizen and professional input to achieve the stated goals of the city and its people relative to cable. (7) The continued reference in the article to “‘political implication” is an unfortunate attempt by those who are against cable TV to cloud the relevant issue from the Mayor and Council. The local applicant’s position has been to have the question r cable now. OF tthe v piienece iance Bee Ge of cable judged solely on its merits and all applicants judged equally on their proposal and qualifications. TelcoR’s position is no secret. It has been openly advocated on the public record for 18 months. Applicants should be judged solely on their merits and qualifications, and should all things be equal, local ownership and control is more desirable than nonlocal ownership and control. It would seem that the ‘‘political implications” referred to really center around the involvement of “local” people seeking to win a franchise. I need not remind your readers that local ownership is a criterion followed by the F.C.C._ itself in comparative hearings for broadcast licenses. Local ownership has become a recognized virtue in many endeavors of business, not just cable television. The relevant question to ask should in my opinion, focus on the merits of the application and the qualifications of the applicant, as opposed to the more personal question of the propriety of persons of known community involvement ‘‘attempting to do business with the city.” The unfortunate aspect of the situation in Rockville was the accusation that because a local applicant consisted of involved local people, it was improper for them to seek a franchise. (8) Lastly, telecoR members are not silent on any issue concerning cable, whether it be data transmission, local ownership, franchise fees, or “political implications.’’ We have, and continue to, stand ready to discuss or debate with any one, any time, under damn near any conditions. Every action we have taken has been on the public record. We have done nothing, said nothing, written nothing, that has not been open and on the public record. Our objective is to get the opponents of cable to do the same. Edward Steers, Jr., President Telecommunications of Rockville, Inc. Reporter's reply: (1) According to information supplied by Mr. Frank Gospodarek, more than one telcoR member participated in the Citizens’ for Good Government election campaign. The efforts of CGG members to expel telcoR from CGG after the election show that many did in fact view telcoR’s participation in local government as a threat. (2) CATV is not a high priority for most Rockville residents. Support for CATV is higher in areas where over-air reception is poor, and a groundswell of favorable opinion on CATV does exist in those areas. (3) Records of the July 10, 20, 30, 1973 hearings reside in n Rockville Page Hall. According to my rough count, i wi s (testifying for B'nai B Mr. Steers . ue Ricks, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Shafer (telcoF’s none con sultant) were directly tied to telcoR. The influence of telcoR members upon other local civic groups cannot be calculated. Mr. Panagos, an independent cable operator in Gaithersburg, Md., also testified in favor of cable. (4) Dr. Roald Schrack testified publicly at the July 20, 1973 hearing. Schrack has also written several letters to the Rockville mayor and council, as have telcoR members and private citizens. These letters are in the CATV file in Rockville City Hall. (5) Rockville’s relationship to a county-wide cable system or other Washington area systems listing overlapping directorships, is indeed a relevant issue. “Conspiracy” was never mentioned, but facts about other Ford cable groups in the area were presented. Furthermore, it is essential not to confuse anti-telcoR sentiment with truly anti-cable sentiment: the two are not the same. (6) It was never stated nor implied that an ordinance was adopted; | regret the error in identifying the franchise application as the ordinance. It is debatable if truly impartial citizen and professional! input could be gained one month before city elections. (7) The point drawn about “political implications” (a phrase used once in the article) is intended to focus attention on the methods of franchise-seeking by local people—use of personal and political influence to obtain a franchise. CVR is not opposed to local franchisees which a community selects by adequately weighing all the facts. (8) When asked directly about data transmission, Mr. Steers replied, “‘There’s no immediate use for data processing,” while Mr. Ricks and Mr. Freeland commented on other cable potential. Since it’s predicted that in 10 years 80 per cent of all cable use will be for data transmission, the issue is also relevant. by the media? X It doesn’t take an expert to discover that those folks who own and control the media are putting something over on the rest of us. But most people are just too busy to keep up with the media’s new tricks that are underway—and their fellow citizens’ moves to make the media more open. Community Video Report is a unique publication that tries to keep the general public abreast of the latest developments Won't you give us your support by subscribing and sending a donation to further our work and help cover our printing costs? The form is on p. 16. Do it now.