THE PUBLIC MIND: CABLE-TV MANAGER SAYS CONSUMERS WOULD BE ULTIMATE VICTIMS OF PROPOSED CABLE BILL

Dear Editor:

Legislation is pending in Congress to reregulate the cable television industry. Some of the legislation claim that it is "pro-consumer." But ironically, if that legislation were enacted, it would probably raise cable rates rather than lower them: And it would most certainly curtail the growth in quality programming that consumers have come to enjoy.

Legislation in the Senate would sanction "retransmission consent," whereby over-the-air broadcasters (such as ABC, CBS, and NBC) could charge fees to cable companies for retransmitting their "free" broadcast signals over cable. According to the chairman of CBS, this proposal could force cable companies to pay broadcast TV stations as much as $1 billion a year.

What will cable subscribers get from retransmission consent? They'll get the same network programming, the same commercials, and the billion-dollar bill. Meanwhile, their neighbors who don't subscribe to cable will continue to get the network for free.

The House bill also contains costly provisions of its own. It would force cable operators to install expensive new equipment in cable homes at a cost of $3.8 to $5.8 billion over five to seven years. The U.S Department of Commerce has estimated that the House bill could cost $23 to $51 per year for each cable subscriber.

It's truly amazing that Washington could produce a supposedly "pro-consumer" cable bill that would actually end up raising people's rates. But the fact is, it's not a consumer bill at all. Rather, it's a bill designed to extend special favors to the cable industry's competitors.

Consider the "must-carry" provisions in both the House and Senate bills. These provisions would force cable operators to dedicate an enormous percentage of their channel line-up to broadcasters, and if necessary, to drop popular cable networks to meet those requirements.

A "forced program access" provision in the House bill would put government in the business of setting wholesale prices for cable networks like CNN and Nickelodeon. No other media industry is subject to this level of intrusive government regulation. This provision would reduce the incentive for cable networks to create new programming, since they could not protect the distribution and pricing of their product.

These provisions are not designed for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of the cable industry's rivals. They attempt to micromanage the cable television industry by introducing government intervention into virtually every aspect of our entertainment industry from setting wholesale prices for programming, to regulating retail prices for networks like CNN an Nickelodeon, to dictating the type of set-top converters we install in cable homes. As a whole, this legislation is loaded down with regulatory excess and special favors for cable's commercial rivals.

The cable industry has been willing to admit that there may be a rationale for some rate guidelines, but this extreme bill is bad for both consumers and the cable industry. If Congress imposes these costly regulations on cable television and extends these special favors to cable's competitors, consumers will ultimately wind up paying the bill.

We believe legislation that would result in higher cable rates, less diversity in programming, and reduction in service constitutes a very strange notion of consumer protection.

Sincerely,

Roger Harms

TCI-Cablevision

of Missouri, Inc.