July 6, 1979 A STATEMENT ON PROPOSALS TO REVISE THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT BY DALE PONTIUS (PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) Television and radio, an industry made possible by government licensing and technical regulation, have become leading factors in determining what kind of people we are, to adapt the comment of a British Parliamentarian about his own country. An industry licensed by government to become a money-making machine, now moves to shake itself loose from effective regulation in the public interest, and indbead of developing more effective regulation, existing proposals threaten to undermine what regulation we now have. The public had been so mesmerized by the broadcasting and radio media, and the public has been so little aware of what the issues are because of the failure of the industry to debate the issues in public, that we are likely to be more than ever under a regime of programming in which a small band of corporation executives censor in the interest of selling goods through commercials. This band of censors wrap themselves in the banners of First Amendment freedom while operating their money-making machines for the highest possible profits. All kinds of innovating programs are ditched in fear of a"rippling effect" which might disturb viewers and listeners from being alert to commercials, or subject to absorbtion through an Osmosis-like innertness. air The hy-jacking of the/waves goes on, and proposals for legislative revision of regulation would move in the direction of a less effective commission with reduced powers. The public mood to reduce government is taken advantage of in an industry which by its very nature must be monopolistic in its structure. I am unwilling to believe that it is impossible to develop controls which would assure a considerably greater variety of programming for the American people, and which would assure that an able group of commissioners represented them, unhampered by arbitrary limitations upon terms of office which would prevent skill and expertise from being rewarded. From what I see of legislative proposals, they do not represent a trend which would contribute to the civilizing influences of our society. Rather, they present some sort of exhibit of a descent to some lower common denominator. Dale Pontius Statement of JAMES L. TUNGATE, J.D., Ph.D. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Communications of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives You are relaxing comfortably at home, finally getting a few moments of leisure after a hurried day. You turn on television to watch your favorite program. What springs forth from the set is not the opening theme music and scenes you anticipate, but static, and a blizzard of spots. Do you need a new television set? Do you need your old one repaired? Is there a problem with the cable TV service? If you were living in a small town say fewer than 5,000 population there is a high probability that you would, and could, call only one telephone number for answers to all three questions, for the man who sells the new, and services the old, also owns the cable. And unless you own only portable televisions and waste time and energy traveling to a city of greater size to have them repaired, you are the potential victim of a monopoly of far greater consequence to many people's daily lives than the phone, electric or gas services. The situation is not unusual in many small towns although there are no statistics available. This type of "cable cross-ownership" does not have the free speech implications of the newspaper-broadcast variety. It has, in fact, a far greater impact on the average small town citizen and his local government. The citizen can become the victim of what might be called entertainment extortion. The cost of building a tower to receive television signal, meaning often any channel at all, is too great for most individuals. The same is true for FM stereo radio reception. A cable system becomes the only economically feasible way to open the electronic media windows to the rural cities. The New York Times and Washington Post are far more accessible in some towns than a radio or TV station signal from 150 miles away. A cable system requires an expertise in design, construction and maintenance that is not readily found in small communities. Naturally, the one person who possesses these technical skills is the same person who also repairs the TV's and radios, and in most small towns, that is also the person who sells the receivers as well. One might think that the present regulatory scheme would prevent many, if not all, of the potential abuses these mini-monopolies create. In the brisk reality of village government, far from the quiet halls of Federal office buildings, the members of the city council do not fully appreciate their regulatory powers. The cable operator need only say that the FCC requires it, and whatever he wants is virtually certain to be included, or excluded, from the cable TV ordinance. Competent though they may be, the local attorneys in such areas are hardly members of the Federal Communications Bar, and an ordinance that surfaces once every ten years or so is not worth the expense required to educate the City Attorney on cable franchising. What happens? The cable operator becomes the prime source of legal information for the city council or village board. There are further political ramifications as well, some related more to the dynamics of a small community than to the lack of expertise on cable regulation. " One city in Illinois, has passed, and recently re-enacted a franchise ordinance that never mentions a word about fees, rates or charges. The cable operator decides what to charge his more than 2,000 hookups, and he decides what to charge for system connection. As literally happened in that community, the charge for connection went from $5 to $30 - $40 within a week. The ordinance does not even require uniform treatment, so that the cable operator has the ability to charge one household $40 to be connected to the cable, plus $5 or $10 or more for each outlet in addition to a monthly charge, but the household next door might be charged only $5 for a hook-up because they are "old customers,' or any other fiction the operator might create. There is a good possibility of greater abuse when such a situation is combined with the operator or his family owning the primary television sales and service outlet in the town. There is no evidence that the particular city government in Illinois had any intention of favoring the operator. One might guess that the city council was uncertain of the economic expertise required to set rates, and perhaps thought the operator should take direct responsibility, and criticism for the fees. But who will criticize? Will it be the person buying a TV on installment from the TV operator salesman repairman? Will it be the person who depends on the TV operator salesrepairman for service on his set? Obviously not. man Bad as that may be, these mini-monopolies create the potential for even greater abuses. The following is the complete "Cable T.V. Service Application" utilized by one operator in Illinois. Note it is far from being an "application. 58-360 O CABLE T.V. SERVICE APPLICATION its lessors, There is hereby granted to at This also includes the rights for access at reason- not to put this instrument on the county records Note that the "application" gives a full easement to the operator without cost, and quite remarkably, complete access to the property during "reasonable hours" without the need for any further permission from the property owner. By this "application' the operator could walk in the house at 9 a.m. and watch TV (to check "reception") until 5 p.m., if in fact a later hour would not be "reasonable." And of course, if one wants cable service, one must sign. Then again, one can speculate on how many people consider it only an "application," as it is labeled, and never bother to read what rights are being given away. When the operator was questioned by one customer about why that access sentence was included, he replied that the FCC required it. The most efficient means of correcting the problems and potential abuses surrounding the cable mini-monopolies in small towns is not more Federal reguation. The solution is competition. The ownership of cable systems should be as diversified as the market permits, which means that telephone systems should not be prohibited from entering the cable competition. There is now a sufficient number of established cable operators that the threat, if any ever existed, of a state being wired wall to wall by a single phone company cable system is virtually impossible. Undoubtedly some of the mini-monopoly cablecasters will lose customers or perhaps terminate business after an alternative system with better service becomes available. There is certainly everything right about that kind of business failure. Increased competition will also benefit residents of larger cities where the cable system is owned by one of the half-dozen major corporate cable operators that have dominated the field for the past five years. The development of satelite-to-home systems should not be hindered by excessive Federal interference. Rather, any means of increasing competition among cable operators will improve the service to the rural communities, whether through actual competition for subscribers, or through only the threat of a competing system. To the man with the television screen of snow and a speaker of static, having to make one call to the cable company and a second call to the TV repairman could save considerable money and inconvenience. Professional Vital of James L. Tungate James L. Tungate began his career in broadcasting at the age of 17 as a radio announcer in Normal, Illinois. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science from Illinois Wesleyan University in 1969, and earned the Master of Arts in 1970 and Doctor of Philosophy in 1972 from Northwestern University in Radio-TV-Film. He received an honor ary Doctor of Humane Lettres from the London Institute in 1972 as well, and graduated with a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Before studying law, Mr. Tungate was Professor and Chairman of Communications at Loyola University of New Orleans, which owns cable interests and WWL-AM-FM-TV. While affiliated with Loyola University, Tungate was also Director of the Institute for Religious Communications, television consultant to the Institute of Politics and Chairman of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities Communications Conference. He headed the networks' and wire services' pool for the federal election coverage as Louisiana Director of the News Election Service. In 1974 Tungate's book, Readings in Broadcast Law was published by Loyola, with a revised edition in 1976. He has published articles in numerous trade publications and journals. Tungate was named Outstanding Young Alumnus of 1976 by Illinois Wesleyan University and named in Outstanding Young Men of America and Personalities of the South. He is a Member of Highest Distinction of Pi Kappa Delta, forensic fraternity; Phi Alpha Delta, Law Fraternity; Sigma Delta Chi, The Society of Professional Journalists; the American Film Institute, and the International Radio and Television Society. He also serves on the Illinois Wesleyan University Board of Visitors. Mr. Tungate served as Assistant to the State's Attorney in 1978 prior to joining his wife, the former Susan Jessie Sumner, in founding Tungate & Tungate, Attorneys-at-Law. The Tungate & Tungate main office is located in Watseka, Illinois. |