CITY NEEDS TO REGULATE COSTS TO ENHANCE CONTENT; WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS CABLE SYSTEMS ENJOY MONOPOLY BENEFITS

Since the Cable Act of 1984, cities have had little power to regulate cable systems, except for the drastic step of not renewing the franchise. Since that time, cities have had no power to affect either the rates, or the content of what is delivered on cable systems within their borders.

The Cable Act of 1984 made already-existing cable systems, as well as those later established, virtual monopolies. The difference between cable monopolies and public utility monopolies is the public utility monopolies are subject to regulation and certain steps they must take before a public service commission. Cable systems, on the other hand, have the benefits of the monopoly, without any of the restrictions.

Thus, a line graph charting the rates charged in Cape since TCI took over the franchise would show a continuing increase, with no requirement that the city approve or deny same. While it is true the number of channels provided by TCI have increased, so have the rates.

I would hope either through Congress, and some variation of the Danforth bill, or the FCC and Chairman Sikes' latest thoughts on same, that some form of regulation returns to cable franchising. At the least, cities ought to be able to have some control over the cost of the basic package offered by cable.

Such control would return the negotiations to a more level playing field. Also, the ability to control basic rates would provide more leverage in renewal discussions about what other items the cable system might provide as part of the renewal package.

While I hope, at least for basic service, that the city gets some regulatory power, I am not anxious for cities to have the power to regulate the content of what is carried on the cable system. I am not comfortable acting as the censor for my friends and neighbors.

I believe the market place ought to be the place that determines what is carried. That does not mean that the city shouldn't have the power to be involved as to what is carried on the basic package. If we view the basic package as something vital, as say electricity to power the house, then the city ought to be able to insist that all local network affiliates be a part of the package, as well as other minimums that might be determined.

That determination might be made by polling the residents as to their requests. What would be included would affect the cost of the package, since the franchise has a right to charge the cost of the programs selected. I would also emphasize that basic cable would not have every channel people might want since it is the basic cable. But we could insure that citizens, for an affordable price, could get the information one needs in today's world.

One issue raised in our town meeting was that of being forced to receive channels on cable you do not wish to see. Specifically, the complaint was about MTV. While the present solution offered is to purchase a lock box and pay to not see something, I have to believe that as the technology increases, the city can expect in the future the cable system could have the capacity to divert those channels, upon request, and without great expense. I hope that possibility could be part of any package the city agrees to with a future cable system.

Although I was asked to focus more on content, rather than cost, in this perspective, I don't think you can separate the two. If Cape gets more power to control what a cable system may charge, even if only on basic, then Cape has more power to bargain for larger capacity for its system or any other improvements you could imagine. I hope that is where we are headed; I also hope we use that power to increase our choices, not narrow them.

Michael Maguire is chairman of the Cape Girardeau Citizens Advisory Committee on Cable Television.