Originally published in Synapse on October 4, 1973.
Monopoly control and citizen, especially minority, participation are crucial factors in developing guidelines for Cable Television.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is now between hearings to determine “how the interests of San Francisco might best be served by more competition among CATV franchisees, [to] establish local program origination by CATV systems, [and to] establish community access to CATV systems” and “fair franchise fee structure.”
Although the above statement was part of an April 30, 1973, memo from Supervisor Dianne Feinstein to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a 90-day moratorium on cable installations was denied in an 8-3 vote by the Supervisors on May 7.
The request for a moratorium was made by 20 community organizations, many representing residents of the Mission district. The citizen groups argue that the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) subsidiary, Viacom International (locally TV Signal) holds a monopoly on cable television franchises and has deliberately excluded the poorer communities from access to and participation in CATV.
They ask that the community have the right to monitor the franchise, and that the Board establish an official committee of community representatives to conduct the monitoring.
Supervisor Gonzales, who joined Pelosi and Mendelsohn in supporting the community groups, argued that Viacom TV failed to live up to its franchise agreements, since it has hooked up mainly middle and upper income neighborhoods, bypassing most of Hunter’s Point, the Mission, the Fillmore, Chinatown, the Western Addition, and the Haight-Ash-bury neighborhoods.
The mixed reactions of San Francisco Supervisors concerning public access to Cable TV is reflected in the recent correspondence of the Board. In August 1973, the Board received a letter of inquiry from a representative of New York State.
He is planning for CATV there and asked about San Francisco’s plan for its system. The response by Clerk Robert Dolan stated, “No particular attempt was made to insure citizen participation of a greater degree than usual in our public hearings preceding the grant of the franchise.”
The Board has also been involved in releasing the only other Cable TV franchisee, Western TV Cable, from its contract. In 1966 Western TV Cable beat three other competing the first cable TV franchise in San Francisco for a mere $2,500. Western TV Cable is a subsidiary of the Chronicle Publishing Company, which also owns 50 percent of the Examiner Publishing Company, KRON-TV, and KRON-FM radio. Only one other franchise was purchased, that one by Viacom International, which is controlled by the Columbia Broadcasting Company.
In December 1968 the Federal Communications Commission began hearings whether to prohibit ownership by one company or its affiliates of both a TV broadcasting station and a CATV system in the same community. The FCC finally ruled that any company with two such holdings would have to divest itself of one by August 1973.
In March 1969, separate FCC hearings were begun to specifically review the Chronicle Broadcasting Company’s application for renewal of licenses for KRON-TV and KRON-FM. Because of the questions of joint ownership, the investigation lasted four years, and the decision in favor of renewal was finally released May 20, 1973.
The FCC did not reverse its requirements for cable ownership, although the deadline for relinquishment of holdings was changed from August 1973 to August 1975. The committee also ruled that individual franchisees can apply for special waivers to allow ownership of more than one form of media.
A dissent to the Chronicle licensure decision by FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson (whose term as Commissioner has since expired) was then printed in the May 24, 1973, San Francisco Bay Guardian.
The dissent was not printed in the Chronicle or Examiner, nor reported by KRON. In his argument Johnson cites the findings of the hearing as evidence that the Commission should not have just “winced and renewed” the Chronicle licenses.
There were clear examples of “concentration of media control, anticompetitive practices, and illegal harassment of certain concerned members of the public.” Western Cable TV now professes to be acting on the behalf of the consumers.
That is, their reason for asking to relinquish their franchise was to “best serve San Francisco,” since requesting a waiver would further delay the possibility of Cable TV for television viewers. The Chronicle’s subsidiary, Western CATV, had never actually begun operation.
The April 6, 1973, request to the Board of Supervisors for relinquishment of the franchise stated that the delay in installation of cable was due to reasons “beyond our control.” The reasons included the unavailability of poles from Pacific Telephone and Telegraph.
However, some observers feel that the CATV people were too busy petitioning the FCC for reconsideration of its cross-ownership decision to actually establish a cable television system.
Cable TV potential does not lie merely in providing better television reception or additional channels for programming. Possible uses for this new technology include home information centers which could print out daily newspapers; universities without walls; unlimited non-commercial and alternative commercial programming; uniting viewers in “instant plebiscite,” style meetings; or even as a means of surveillance, Big Brother Style.
