Little is known about the role of cable television systems as an element of the communications infrastructure of cities. This research looks at local cable systems in terms of households served, total channels and community-oriented channels per system, interactive capacity, and local origination programming. A considerable gap is found between the vision of the "wired city" and the current performance of cable systems on these measures. The findings suggest that there is serious question whether cable will ever provide an excess of broadcast capacity and interactive programming and services to a majority of residents in most communities unless such provision becomes a clear goal of public policy.

Public Policy and Community-Related
Uses of Cable Televison

Cable television's promise of providing public benefits at the community level has had a roller-coaster quality. When the unique capacities of this technology were first recognized in the late 1960s, cable systems were seen as a means of enhancing social, political, and economic processes in cities (Kay, 1976; Sloan Commission, 1971; Smith, 1970; White, 1968). During the following decade, however, cable systems did not expand as predicted (Besen and Crandall, 1981; Price, 1975). By 1980, the situation was reversed, with the number of communities with cable systems and subscribers increasing rapidly. This spurt of growth rekindled visions of a "wired nation" in which the surplus of channels and interactive capacity of local systems would provide citizens, organizations, and public agencies with virtually unlimited access to cablecasting and use of cable-based technology for municipal services and management functions. Yet, even in the midst of this period of significant expansion, concern is being raised as to whether the advanced cable systems will ever enhance program diversity or be widely applied to community-related public uses (Noam, 1982).

This uneven development has produced surprisingly little research on the record of cable systems as generators of public benefits for communities. Considerable material has been written describing "success stories" of public applications of cable in a particular city, focusing on a specific use in several communities, such as public access or the cablecasting of city council meetings, and cataloguing the various ways cities can utilize cable technology (American City and County, 1982; Jesuale and Smith, 1982; Knight et al., 1982; Moss, 1978; Public Management, June 1980). There remains, however, a need for a more systematic examination of the actual or potential public-oriented uses in enough communities to allow comparative analysis and evaluation. Consequently, this article will review the characteristics of cable technology that have raised high expectations for public benefits at the local level. We will then briefly note the regulatory relationship of cities and cable systems, identify and apply a set of measures to assess the physical and technological capacity of existing cable systems for public-oriented uses and whether their capacities are utilized, and, finally, discuss the implications of the findings for the future public role of cable television in cities.

CABLE AND THE CITY

During the past eight years the number of cable television subscribers in the United States has grown from 12 million to more than 33 million. Over the same period, the number of pay cable subscribers rose from 565,000 to almost 20 million (CableVision, July 2, 1984: 31). This dramatic increase has been largely attributed to the availability of satellite-distributed cable programming.

The success of cable as a delivery system for commercial programming and pay services has overshadowed the issue of whether there has been a parallel growth in the public benefits that cable television technology has the potential to provide. Cable systems with 100 or more channels can carry over-the-air television signals, satellite network programs, local origination cablecast programming, and text services. A system of this size could turn the present scarcity of video transmission capacity in cities into a surplus. If this is done, any citizen, community organization, and public agency or official potentially could have access to local origination programs at little or no cost, and specific channels could be allocated to public use.

A second critical feature of cable technology is its interactive capacity. Information can flow in two directions, so that subscribers can send and receive a variety of messages. The range of such uses includes opinion and preference polling on public issues, electronic reading of gas or water meters, home shopping, and fire and security alarm systems.

Cable systems can also be designed to modify their spatial configurations. Adjacent systems can be linked to provide locally originated programming and services on a regional scale. Conversely, in a large city, local origination programs can be made available to specific geographic subareas, such as councilmatic wards, school districts, or neighborhood planning areas (International City Management Association, 1982). Institutional networks can also be created to link selected facilities, such as schools, libraries, law enforcement agencies, and municipal departments, as well as commercial establishments, so that both non-video and video messages can be transmitted among the units in the network (Kerver, 1983).

From a community perspective, cable systems with a large number of channels, interactive capacity, and the ability to vary the spatial trans mission can create opportunities for enhancing public dialogue among citizens and between citizens and officials, directing citizen participation in public proceedings, and improving the efficiency of municipal services and administrative processes.

Municipal Regulation

While the technology of cable is particularly applicable to community-oriented uses, another factor has been central in linking its development to cities. In most states, local governments have been able to apply their authority to regulate the use of rights-of-way and franchise utilities to cable systems. Through the exercise of these powers, cities and towns can determine the technical characteristics of the cable system to be installed within their boundaries and impose specific channel allocation and service requirements. Thus such things as public access, governmental and educational channels, and interactive capacity could be required as conditions for awarding a franchise. When more than one cable operator is interested, a community may be able to gain additional system capacity and services from competitive bidding.

Since the late 1970s, a number of large cities granting cable television franchises for the first time, such as Boston, Dallas, and Pittsburgh, have successfully bargained for what can be called "high-tech" systems. These include 100-plus channels, institutional networks, public access facilities, and interactive capacity. The agreements have been viewed by many as evidence that most urban centers will be able to obtain similar "state-of-the-art" systems in the future. However, there are now factors at play that may reduce the likelihood this will occur.

Some cable operators are withdrawing from bidding for franchises when city governments require extensive and expensive public-use provisions (Cooney, 1983; Rothbart and Stoller, 1983; Salmans, 1984). In addition, competing technologies, such as multipoint distribution systems, subscription over-the-air television, and Satellite Master Antenna TV are challenging cable systems for delivering video signals into the home, as will direct-broadcast satellite systems in the near future (O'Connell et al, 1982).

Two related developments may also reduce the leverage of cities to bargain with cable operators. In the last several sessions of Congress, legislation has been considered that would substantially limit the powers of both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and city and state governments to control the operation of cable systems (ACCESS, 1983: 2, 3; Entman, 1983). Cable companies also are using the courts to challenge the right of cities to regulate them, arguing that municipalities have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act in awarding exclusive franchises. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Community Communications Company, Inc. v. City of Boulder in 1982 and Capital Cities v. Crisp in 1984 have given encouragement to this line of legal attack (Greenhouse, 1984; Proffer, 1983).

Any one of these developments could reduce the incentives or requirements for operators to provide community-oriented uses of their cable systems. Collectively, they reflect the importance of the broader political and economic environment in determining cable's role in cities. Any assessment of cable's future in urban areas will have to take these factors into account. At the same time, the progress made in cable systems' becoming an integral part of a community's communications infrastructure will also affect the future. How much has been achieved constitutes a measure of how much remains to be done.

Methodology

Systematic and comparative research on community uses of cable has been constrained, in large part, because the data available on the characteristics of cable systems for the nation as a whole and even specific cities tend to be uneven, limited in detail, and, at times, incomplete (Entman, 1983: 18, 19). The reasons for this include the recent rapid increases in both systems and subscribers, the self-reporting basis of information provided to trade publications and the FCC, the dynamic state of the technology, and the periodic technological upgrading or shifting of channel uses within systems.

Taking these problems into account, several research strategies were adopted. First, the analytic goals are modest. The intent is to identify the physical and technological aspects of cable that are relevant to a selected set of community-oriented uses and determine how these characteristics are distributed and utilized among cable systems. The primary interest is in those uses that can enhance public communication, dialogue, and interaction among citizens and between citizens and officials. To compensate for some of the problems that exist with the data, three points of observation are used: the nation, the 50 largest cable systems, and a sample of cable systems in the New York metropolitan area. Even so, it must be noted that the data utilized are largely from 1981 and 1982 and do not reflect the franchises that have been granted recently in a number of large urban areas but that are not yet operating or fully developed. Usable data on these systems will not be available for several years, but we hope that it will be included in future research that can draw upon this work for baseline data.

The proportion of a city's population that receives cable signals is a basic indicator of the system's potential public role. Unless a substantial number of households subscribe, cable can make few claims to providing benefits to the community as a whole. The channel capacity of a system offers a measure of whether the potential exists for limited or wide public use. The state of the system's technology also is important. If it does not have interactive capacity, many of the high-tech benefits are not possible. The actual allocation of channels to public-related use, such as governmental, educational, or public access, is another obvious measure, as is the amount of local origination programming that is cablecast by a system.

In the ensuing analysis, the information available on these measures is initially reviewed for the total set of cable systems in the United States. Then the 50 largest cable systems, in terms of subscribers, are examined on the assumption that this group corrects for the small system bias in the national figures. Finally, the results are reported of a survey of cable operators in the Tri-State New York Metropolitan Region, which allowed a wider and more detailed set of questions to be asked about current operations and future development plans. While comparisons will be made among the levels, a more important use of these different scales, given the problems with data quality and completeness, is to enhance the reliability of the findings.

CABLE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NATION AND 50 LARGEST SYSTEMS

There are approximately 4600 cable systems in the United States, and they vary considerably in size and technological capacity. Table 1 displays the number of households that have cable systems available and the number of subscribers. Less than one-third of the households in the country subscribed to a cable service in 1982. This low percentage is partially due to the fact that just over half of America's television homes are passed by cable and have the choice of subscribing. The number of channels available in a system is an important factor in determining whether there will be a surplus or scarcity of potential access to cablecasting for citizens and officials. The great majority of systems do not have a large channel capacity. In 1981, FCC data showed that the number of channels for 3941 systems ranged from 3 to 60. More than two-thirds, as noted in Table 2, have fewer than 20 channels, and three-fifths have no more than 12.

 

TABLE 1 Number of TV Households, Households Passed by Cable Systems, and Subscribers in the US

Homes in Franchise Areas 81,500,000 Number of Homes Passed % of Total Homes 44,252,000 54.3% Number of Subscribers % of Total Homes %of Homes Passed 22,242,000 29.7% 54.8%

Source: CableVision (September 20, 1982: 143)

In addition to carrying over-the-air television signals and satellite programs, a system can allocate all or a portion of some of its channels to governmental, educational, public access, or leased access uses. While the amount and quality of the programming is not guaranteed, the dedication of channels for these purposes increases the likelihood that there will be locally originated material relevant to the community. Yet FCC data for 1981 indicate that at least 75% of all cable systems in the United States do not have even one governmental, educational, public access, or leased access channel (Noam, 1981: 5, 6).

 

TABLE 2 Channel Capacity of Cable Systems in the U.S.

No. of Channels No. of Systems % of Systems 1 - 5 6 - 12 13 - 19 20 - 29 30+ 87 2,321 246 751 536 2.2 58.9 6.2 19.0 13.6 Total: 3,941 99.9

Source: Noam (1981:18)

Local origination programming is essential if a system is to provide opportunities for community-related communication. Most systems (70%) have this capacity, but local origination can be of two types - automated and nonautomated. While both are desirable, nonautomated programming is necessary for live cablecasting. However, only one-third of all cable systems have such facilities (Noam, 1981: 4). Data on program content are limited on the national scale. Information gathered by the FCC is general and is obtained through self-reporting by cable operators. Of the five categories of local origination programming listed - news, public affairs, sports, public service, and advertising - only three are offered by more than 10% of the total systems: automated news (21%), nonautomated public affairs (15%), and sports (11.1%; Noam, 1981:4).

Large-Scale Systems

The data utilized for the nation are skewed toward the smaller systems. One obvious way to control for such bias is to look at the characteristics of the systems with the largest number of subscribers. Subscriber information, as reported in 1982 in the Broadcasting / Cablecasting Year Book, was gathered on the 50 largest operating cable systems. They range in size from 207,572 subscribers in San Diego to 38,797 in Concord, California. Just over one-half have at least 50,000 paying households.

In the aggregate, there are 6,241,869 homes in the franchise areas of 33 of the 50 cable systems for which data are available on both the number of homes passed and subscribers. Of these, 69% are passed by cable systems, 49% of the passed homes subscribe, and 34% of the total homes in the franchise areas subscribe (see Table 3). Two-thirds of the households in the communities covered by the largest cable systems do not receive cable service.

 

TABLE 3 Number of TV Households, Households Passed by Cable Systems, and Subscribers in Largest Cable Systems

Homes in Franchise Areas 6,241,869 Number of Homes Passed % of Total Homes 4,333,525 69.4% Number of Subscribers % of Total Homes %of Homes Passed 2,102,798 33.7% 48.5% N = 33

Source: Broadcasting/Cablecasting Yearbook (1982)

The biggest channel capacity in the 50 largest systems, as reported in Table 4, is 42. The average number of channels per system is 27.5. A small majority have between 30 and 39, but almost one-fifth are in the 12-19 category. The more recently established systems are more likely to have greater channel capacity. Of all systems formed in 1970 or later, 78% have over 30 channels and 18 of the 26 in this size range were started since 1970.

 

TABLE 4 Channel Capacity of Largest Cable Systems

No. of Channels No. of Systems % of Systems 12 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40+ 9 14 26 1 18 28 52 2 Total: 50 100

Source: Broadcasting/Cablecasting Yearbook (1982)

A major element of cable technology for enhancing public communication at the local level is its interactive potential. However, few (22%) of the largest systems report having interactive capacity.

Allocating specific channels for governmental, educational, and public access is one of the most frequently mentioned methods for utilizing cable for community purposes. Table 5 indicates the status of allocations for these uses compared to the number of pay movie and entertainment channels. Two-thirds of the systems have no channels allocated to governmental or educational uses. Of those that do, virtually none have more than one governmental or educational channel. In contrast, 94% of the systems have at least one pay channel and 42% have two or more.(Note 1)

 

TABLE 5 Government, Educational and Pay Channels in Largest Cable Systems

No. of Channels Systems with Govt. Channels % Systems with Educ. Channels % Pay Channels % 0 1 2 3 4 34 13 2 69 27 4 31 15 2 1 63 31 4 2 3 26 11 8 2 6 52 22 16 4 Total: 49 100 49 100 50 100

Source: Broadcasting/Cablecasting Yearbook (1982)

The analysis of data for the country as a whole and the largest cable systems provides a baseline assessment of cable services. Most people do not have cable subscriptions. For those who do, few have an abundance of channels, and the number of households with the option of an interactive service is extremely small. Moreover, of the cable channels that are available, a low percentage is allocated to uses that have the potential for community-related programming, such as public access, governmental, or educational channels.

Given the consistency of these findings, there is little reason to believe that they do not provide an accurate picture of the general state of cable systems and community-related uses. It also is true, however, that such a reliance on secondary data has limitations. Consequently, a survey of cable systems in the Tri-State New York Metropolitan Region was conducted to augment the information sources that have been utilized to this point.

CABLE SYSTEMS IN THE TRI-STATE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION

The Tri-State region encompasses a broad range of social, demographic, and economic conditions. It includes New York City, the nation's largest municipality, a number of older industrial cities, and a variety of low-density suburban areas. The region consists of 21 counties in New York and New Jersey and 6 planning districts in Connecticut, as defined by the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (1980).

A sample of 22 cable systems, slightly more than one-third of the region's total, was selected for interviews. These were conducted by telephone. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information about the physical and technological features of the systems, channel allocations, local origination programming, and future development plans.

The cable systems included in the regional sample were chosen to reflect the variations in the area with regard to subscriber size, location, and age. There are11 in New York, 6 in New Jersey, and 5 in Connecticut. Their number of television households range from 7,000 to 350,000, with a majority between 20,000 and 80,000. The number of subscribers varies from 4,500 to 150,000, with more than half in the 10,000 to 30,000 range. A majority of the systems began operation in 1975 or later, and 81% were established by 1970.

As Table 6 indicates, the 84.5% of homes passed in the franchise areas is considerably higher than the comparable figures for the nation and the 50 largest systems. The level of overall penetration is also comparatively high, with 40.8% of all households as subscribers. However, the percentage of homes passed that subscribe is virtually the same as for the largest systems and slightly less than for the nation as a whole. As with earlier findings, a majority of households, 59%, do not have cable service either because they do not subscribe by choice or it is not available.

 

TABLE 6 Number of TV Households, Households Passed and Subscribers in Tri-State Region Cable Systems

Homes in Franchise Areas 1,020,155   Number of Homes Passed 862,323   % of Total Homes   84.5% Number of Subscribers 415,830   % of Total Homes   40.8% % of Homes Passed   48.2% N = 33

Channel Capacity And Technology

The channel capacity of cable systems in the Tri-State region ranges from 11 to 52, with an average size of 33.7 channels. Of the 22 systems, 18 (82%) have 35ormore, although almost all of these are at the 35- or 36-channel level. As the data for the 50 largest systems suggest, the fact that more of the region's franchises began operating since 1970 is probably a major factor in the greater channel capacity. Yet the number of channels in only 2 of the systems exceeds 36, and none approach 100-plus size.

 

TABLE 7 Channel Capacity of Cable Systems in the Tri-State Region

No. of Channels No. of Systems % of Systems 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50+ 2 1 18 0 1 9.1 4.5 81.8 0.0 4.5 Total: 22 100.0

By several other measures of system capacity related to community programming, those surveyed in the region do not fare as well. Four (18%) have interactive technology, although interviews indicated that only two utilize it. One operates a private data transmission line, and the other provides a security network, Dow Jones information, and a shop-at-home channel. Data were collected on two other features, although comparable national figures are not available. Most of the systems do not have addressable converters (85%) or the ability to interconnect with adjacent systems for common programming (72%). The possibility of regional interconnections held little interest for the cable operators surveyed. Most respondents felt that it was not worth developing. Competition rather than cooperation seems to describe more accurately the feelings expressed toward any potential sharing of material with adjacent systems unless there is common ownership.

Community-Oriented Channel Allocations

Almost 80% of the area operators have at least one public access channel, and 10% provide two or three (see Table 8). More than half, 14 (64%), have leased access channels. A high percentage of systems in comparison with national data have either a governmental or educational channel as well, 50% and 36%, respectively. There are, however, certain problems with interpreting these data that are inherent in the state of information concerning cable systems. Table 8 shows the number of channels allocated to community-oriented uses. The extent to which the channels are utilized for this purpose and the quality of the product cannot be determined. Further, the broadcast time on one channel may be divided among a combination of public, governmental, educational, leased access, or other uses. For example, governmental and leased access programs may share a single channel with each other during different parts of the day or either one may share a channel with a satellite network. As the numbers in parentheses in Table 8 indicate, channel sharing occurs frequently in the region. A total of 6 of the 16 governmental or educational, and 6 of the 14 leased access channels, are jointly utilized. It was not possible to obtain the detailed information necessary to determine the amount of time allocated to various uses on shared channels.

 

TABLE 8 Public Access, Governmental, Educational, Leased Access and Pay Channels in Tri-State Region

No. of Channels Public Access Systems with Govt. Channels Systems with Educ. Channels Leased Access Pay Channels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 14/6* 2 1 - - - 22.7 63.6 9.1 4.5 - - - 11 8/3* 3/1* - - - - 50.0 36.4 13.6 - - - - 14 8/3* - - - - - 36.4 63.6 - - - - - 8 14/6* - - - - - 36.4 63.6 - - - - - - 4 5 6 4 1 2 - 18.2 22.7 27.3 18.2 4.5 9.1

* indicates shared rather than exclusive use of a channel.

 

Local Origination

The Tri-Stale region differs considerably from the nation with regard to the number of systems providing local origination programming. Of the 22 operators interviewed, 90% had local origination and 17 or 77% provided live nonautomated programming.

If local origination is provided, the respondent was asked to indicate the type of programs that were carried. Table 9 reports the responses. The most commonly offered programs were automated text community bulletin boards, public service announcements, and local sports coverage, carried by 86%, 77%, and 73%, respectively. Public meetings, interview shows, panels or discussions on public issues, and local news were all provided by more than half of the systems. In addition, 85% sell time for local advertising.

One question was asked to determine whether the cable system operators maintained contact with local organizations or groups for feedback on program formats or production. Just over one-half of the systems (13) did. The only community organization mentioned consistently was the League of Women Voters.

Public Officials And Candidate Use Of Cable

Providing time to public officials and candidates for public office is one important way local origination programming can relate to a community. Officials in the Tri-State region used several formats to communicate with citizens. Fifteen of the cable systems (71%) reported frequent appearances of public officials on their cablecasts through coverage of city council meetings, interview shows, programs hosted by officials, and videotapes received from elected officials. In the latter case, the officials are usually serving at the state or congressional level.

A majority of the sample (13) carried local election results in November 1982. Even more systems (16) presented candidates for office or their spokespersons on locally originated programs during the campaign. The formats varied and included debates, taped interviews, press conferences, and allocated time slots for candidates.

 

TABLE 9 Local Origination Programming in the Tri-State Region

Type of Programming No. of Systems % Community Bulletin Board (Text Automated) Public Service Announcements Local Sports Public Meetings Interview Shows Panel Discussions on Public Issues Local News Call-in Shows 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 86 77 73 68 64 59 55 45

Persons running for office were able to purchase advertising time on just under 50% (10) of the systems surveyed. There were considerable differences among these systems in their policies on carrying political ads, reflecting the lack of well-established practices within the industry on election advertising generally. The systems that carried advertising did not have many candidates purchasing time - two or three were the most frequently mentioned numbers. Furthermore, most candidates buying time were running for national or statewide office. However, several local political organizations, as well as candidates, did utilize the opportunity. One local candidate ran 60 spot ads over a month's time. A county-based political party advertised once a night for the final two weeks of the campaign. Low costs and population targeting were the most important attractions in most cases.

Even with the array of local origination offered in the region and the wide campaign coverage by a number of systems, cable operators face a particular problem in providing community-oriented programming, because many systems include multiple political jurisdictions within the areas they serve. Just 2 of the 19 Tri-State region systems for which there are data contain a single municipal government. In contrast, close to half (9) have 6 or more, and almost one-third (6) have at least ten. If an attempt is made to cover city council meetings, provide news programs that report on all communities, or give time to all candidates for public office, a significant commitment of resources and program time would be necessary. This is apart from the problem of encouraging and providing public access facilities and time to the citizens of all the communities within a franchise area.

Future Development Plans

Because of the dynamic state of the technology, it is important to know what cable operators have in mind for the future as well as to identify the current characteristics of their systems. To determine what changes, if any, are anticipated in the Tri-State region, respondents were asked whether they expected to enhance or add to their systems in the next several years. Table 10 categorizes the responses.

 

TABLE 10 Anticipated Changes Expected by Operators in Cable Systems

Type of Change No. of Systems % Physical or Technological Modifications     Increase in number or operating channels 14 64 Increase in total channel capacity 11 50 Increase or introduction of two-way interactive capacity 10 45 Linking systems to adjacent regional systems 10 45 Channel Uses     Increase or introduction of sale of commercial time to local advertisers 20 95 Increase or introduction of use of cablecasting by candidates for public office 19 77 Increase or introduction of pay services 16 73 Increase or introduction of community-related programming 13 59 Increase or introduction of public access 10 45 Increase or introduction of institutional channels 3 14

Two-thirds of the systems anticipate increasing the number of operating channels by activating unused capacity. One-half expect to add new channels. A smaller number (45%) plan to increase or introduce two-way interactive capacity. However, four (almost half) of these ten systems already have two-way capacity that receives little use. Just under half also are considering establishing linkages with adjacent systems.

Changes envisioned in the use of channels reflect national trends toward greater commercialization. Of the systems studied, 95% expect to increase or introduce the sale of commercial time to local advertisers. Almost three-fourths (73%) plan to add or increase viewer pay services.

In the area of local origination programming, a substantial proportion of the systems (77%) expect to increase the use of cablecasting by candidates for public office. The numbers that anticipate increasing or introducing community-related programming and public access drop to 13 systems (59%) and 10 systems (45%), respectively. Finally, few (3) plan to introduce or increase institutional networks.

Looking at future plans in the aggregate, while there will be some increases in the capacity of the systems, few will have state-of-the-art facilities, and the upgrading will not be across the board. Apart from the greater use of cablecasting for electoral candidates, more systems expect to add or increase revenue-generating local advertisements and pay services than community-related programming.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to distinguish between rhetoric and reality in assessing the current role and future prospects of cable television in providing community-oriented services. The evidence indicates that there is no imperative in cable technology that will automatically produce local video democracy.

As the data show, two-thirds of the television households in the nation do not receive cable service. It is difficult, given this figure, to argue cable penetration has reached a sufficient mass to allow communitywide cable-based communication to take place in more than a few areas. This is not to say that the number of cable subscribers has not grown rapidly in recent years; however, two factors are frequently mentioned as possible constraints on the universal wiring of the nation or even high subscription to population ratios in most large urban centers - both relate to costs.

A number of observers believe that the high dollar costs, in absolute terms as well as in comparison with alternative technologies, of extending cable service to low-density outlying communities and to many subareas of large cities will be prohibitive (Smith, 1981; Stoller, 1982). The other factor concerns the costs that low-income households must bear in purchasing even a basic cable subscription, let alone the more expensive upper-tier services that provide access to more channels and more advanced technology. The fact that these households are geographically concentrated and often in minority communities reduces the incentive for cable franchise holders to wire such areas (Dawson, 1982; Rothbart and Stoller, 1983). Some writers feel that the likely failure of cable systems to serve the urban poor and minorities will contribute to creating a dual culture in relation to effective participation in our emerging information-based society (Haight et al., 1982)2

Apart from the issues of how many and who will subscribe, the question remains of the extent to which cable systems will provide community-related uses. The data reported here suggest that the heralded age of an abundance of media for communitywide communication through cable technology is not within sight, as measured by the number of channels available and the percentage of systems with interactive capacity or the ability to modify their spatial configuration for cablecasting.

Of all the systems in the country, few (10%) have allocated channels to governmental, educational, and public access uses. The record is somewhat better in the 50 largest systems, but it still reflects a quite limited application of cable's potential. Approximately one-third of these systems have channels dedicated to such public programming. The sample of cable systems in the Tri-State region provides a different picture to a degree and indicates that there are regional variations that are not apparent in aggregate data. The penetration rate for subscribers is 40%. The systems are more likely to allocate channels for community-related uses, and a considerable amount of local origination programming is being provided. While the record is not uniform in the region, most of the systems in the sample have multiple features that have relevance to their communities. This is true even though only 2 of the 22 systems have more than 36 channels and few have and utilize interactive programming.

This failure to reach the state of the art for cable technology makes the Tri-State region's systems particularly significant for considering the probable future of cable television in urban areas. The collective performance of the systems suggests that diverse local origination programming and the allocation of channels, at least on a shared basis, to public access and governmental and educational uses is possible for systems with no more than 36 channels. At the same time, the high-tech aspects of cable, such as interactive capacity and the ability to change the spatial configuration for cablecasts, do not exist in most of the systems samples and have not been applied to community programming in the few systems that have the technology.

If it is assumed desirable from a public policy standpoint to facilitate the use of cable technology as part of a community's communication infrastructure, several steps can be suggested based on the findings of this study. One concerns the future role of local governments in regulating cable systems within their boundaries. The data presented in this paper indicate that, while subject to local regulation, cable systems have not, in most cases, provided wide access to citizens and officials for cablecasting, incorporated advanced technology into community-oriented programming, or reached more than a third of the nation with even basic subscription service. If the future development of cable systems is deregulated and largely left to the play of the private market, there is little reason to believe that this record will be improved upon in terms of the community-related uses of cable.

Further, even if public regulation continues and system channel size tends to cluster at 36 rather that 100-plus, as it has in the Tri-State region, the problem of allocating channel space may emerge. Rather than deciding how to use excess channel capacity, cities and citizen groups will be competing with pay services and satellite networks for what turns out be a scarcity of channels in relation to demand. Even now it is not unusual for systems in the mid-30s channel range to carry 2 or 3 movie pay services and 10 satellite networks in addition to local VHP and UHF over-the-air signals. There are currently more than 50 satellite-transmitted program services available. Over half of these have started since 1980 (Cable File/83, 1983). Although some are regional, there are more than enough to fill all the channel capacity of most systems that is not required for carrying over-the-air signals.

Whatever the formal regulatory role to local governments, the performance of cable systems operating within their boundaries will have public consequences. Thus, whether cities and their citizens are regulators of cable systems or are seeking to influence policy toward them in other decision-making arenas, it is clear that far more systematic data gathering and analytic research are needed to ( I ) provide better data on cable system characteristics relevant to the public needs of cities, so that a more accurate and comparative assessment of the performance of cable can be made; (2) determine the number and demographics of cable subscribers that are necessary before a system can adequately serve as a major part of a community's public communication infrastructure; (3) explore organizational and financial arrangements that would facilitate the allocation of channels to community-related uses, particularly if there is a scarcity rather than abundance of channels in relation to demand; (4) examine ways to further the utilization of interactive and other advanced aspects of cable technology for public purposes; and (5) assess the cable-generated information and public dialogue from which non-cable subscribers will be excluded, and consider how other media, such as radio and public television, can fill the gap.

NOTES

1. It is not possible to determine the distribution of public and leased access channels. The Broadcasting/Cablecasting Yearbook combines the two in a single category, "access channels. " Since 86% of the systems reported having access channels and 46% have two or more, it seems reasonable to assume that the number of systems with public access is at least comparable to the percentages for governmental and educational channels.

2. It is important to note that many large cities have not yet been wired for cable and in other cities cable is available in only limited geographic areas. Although the overall literature anticipates cost problems for low-income subscribers, there is evidence that in certain communities these households do subscribe; moreover, the "churn" rate, or rate of starting and stopping subscribers, is often high among such households. Further, there is the possibility that basic subscription fees will be increased substantially in urban high-tech systems, which may limit use by low-income groups: "In Milwaukee, Warner-Amex will seek to double or triple its rates for basic subscribers. Warner-Amex indicates that for some cities the company needs to take in $40.00 for subscribers to break even" (Salmans, 1983: D.I).

REFERENCES

American City and County (1982) "Put cable TV to public use." 97 (October): 27-29.

ACCESS (1983) "S. 66 goes to the Senate floor." 159 (April): 2.3.

Broadcasting/Cablecasting Yearbook (1982) Washington, DC: Broadcast Publications, Inc.

BESEN.S.M. and R.W.CRANDALL (1981) "The deregulation of cable television.''J. of Law and Contemporary Problems 44 (Winter): 77-124.

Cable File/83 (1983). Denver: Titsch Inc.

COONEY, J. (1983) " Cable TV's costly trip to the big cities." Fonure 107 (April 18): 82-88.

DAWSON, F. (1982) "The hottest story in town. "Cable Vision 8 (November 22): 219-229.

ENTMAN, R. M. (1983) Ain't Misbehavin'? Cable Television Franchising and the Case for Local Deregulation. Durham, NC: Duke University, Institute for Policy Science and Public Affairs.

GREENHOUSE, L. (1984) "States' control of cable eased." New York Times (June 19): C18.

HAIGHT, T R. RUBINYI, and A. L. ZORNOSA (1982) "Uses of computer and communications technologies by grass-roots community organizations." Presented at the annual meeting of the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Annapolis, Maryland, April.

International City Management Association (1982) "Planning for the use of cable in municipal services." Management Information Services Report 14 (June): 1-10.

JESUALE, N. and R. L. SMITH [eds.](1982)The Community Medium. Arlington, VA: Cable Television Information Center.

KAY, P. (1976) Social Services and Cable TV. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

K.ERVER, T. (1983) "Meeting business data demands." Cable Television Business 20 (May 15): 90-99.

KNIGHT, F.,H. HORN, and N. JESUALE [eds.] (1982) Telecommunications for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

MOSS, M. (1978) "Cable television: a technology for citizens." J. of Urban Law 55 (Spring): 699-720.

NOAM, E. M. (1982) "The political economy of cable television regulation," pp. 137-155 in 0. H. Gandy,Jr.,etal. (eds.) Proceedings from the Tenth Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

- - - (1981) CableTelevision: A Statistical Overview. New York: Columbia University, Graduate School of Business.

O'CONNELL, R., A. S. SILTON, and R. VAUGHAN (1982) "Telecommunications: the new urban infrastructure." Economic Development Commentary (Spring): 3-8.

PRICE, M. E. (1975) "Requiem for the wired nation: cable rulemaking at the FCC." Virginia Law Rev. 61 (April): 541-577.

PROFFER, L. (1983) "The antitrust quagmire." State Legislatures 9 (May): 21-24.

ROTHBART, G. and D. STOLLER (1983) "Cable at the crossroads." Channels 3 (July/August): 32-37.

SALMANS, S. ( 1984) "Cable operators take a bruising.''New York Times (March 4): Fl, 22.

- - - (1983) "A limping Warner-Amex." New York Times (September 13): Dl.

Sloan Commission on Cable Communications (1971) On the Cable: The Television of Abundance. New York: McGraw-Hil).

SMITH, R. L. (1981) "The birth of a wired nation." Channels I (April/May): 32-37, 88, 89,92.

- - - (1970) "The wired nation." Nation 210 (May 18): 582-606,

STOLLER, D. (1982) "The war between cable and the cities." Channels 2 (April/May): 34-37.

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (1980) Possibilities for Region-Wide Telecommunication Connections, Project Metrotech, Vol. II. New York: Author.

WHITE, S. (1968) "Towards a modest experiment in cable television." Public Interest 12 (Summer): 52-66.

 

AUTHORS' NOTE: Support for this research was provided by the Benlon Foundation and is gratefully acknowledged, as is the invaluable assistance of Kent Hellebust in gathering and helping to organize the data utilized in this study.

 

Originally published in Urban Affairs Quarterly
Vol. 20, No. 2 / December 1984
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills 1984