High Court Strikes A Blow For Consumers

You don’t have to look too far to see who the big winners are in that landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling the other day, requiring cable operators to continue carrying television signals of the nation’s broadcasters.

The high court, by a razor-thin 5-to-4 vote, said the cable industry is legally obligated to transmit local TV station signals under a so-called must-carry law enacted by Congress in 1992. The betting is broadcasters have come out on the winning end in what has been a knock-down, drag-out fight between the two industries for several years.

Clearly, consumers are the big winners - as they should be.

As a result of this ruling, millions of viewers, many in rural areas, will be able to receive cultural and similar types of special programming, among other television fare, from low-power and educational TV stations.

Further, about 40 percent of America’s households are not currently equipped with cable and are said to be in a much better position of eventually getting cable programming, now that television outlets won’t be driven out of business.

That’s comforting. Despite the cable industry’s kicking and screaming in recent years - and particularly the feud with broadcasters over the issue of ceding additional broadcasting turf, we all are apt to be better off because of Congress’ commendable safeguards enacted a few years back that now have been upheld by the high court.

For once, somebody seems to have looked out for weary and skeptical consumers - a rare happenstance, indeed, on most breadbasket issues these days.

I keep thinking about the cable deregulation moves of the last seven or so years, which ultimately led to the 1992 cable deregulation law. At the time, this country virtually was at the mercy of the cable industry, no thanks to runaway cable fees and poor customer service. There were no signs of relief.

Accordingly, Congress began holding a series of hearings into cable practices, including skyrocketing fees and poor customer service. The public had had enough.

The bottom line was that lawmakers listened. And a much-needed piece of legislation was passed to reel in an industry that unquestionably had gotten out of hand.

On one hand, Congress was forcing cable to get its act together from a stand- point of customer service and runaway fees - which it did. But the cable industry had also developed a sense of arrogance at the time by openly refusing to carry the signals of television stations, without compensation first.

That move by cable turned out to be a big mistake because of public sentiment against an industry that had wired itself into America’s homes - but was detached when it came to having important channels of communication to determine what it was doing wrong.

A compromise was eventually worked out between broadcasters and the maligned cable industry, but not before cable operators had been bloodied in a battle they could not win.

The interesting thing about cable’s comeuppance back then was that the impetus for change was initiated in a Bush administration, clearly no fan of laws stifling business operations - or revenues.

The Clinton administration picked up where Republicans left off. But, to date, cable is still the bone of countless contentions on the part of a suspicious public that continues to question rising industry fees that were supposed to be brought under control with the passing of the heralded 1996 telecommunications law.

There are still questions about the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s narrow decision to side with broadcasters - and not cable - on the issue of retransmission of local TV signals.

Some analysts, of course, see it as good news for broadcasters and consumers, which others view as a mixed blessing. The hundreds of extra channels the cable industry has been pushing - and promising - might have to wait a few years before they reach our homes.

That’s OK. We all no doubt are still much better off with manageable cable rates, and a few channels, than an assortment of useless channels that nobody needs - or can afford.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Fred Davis Washington State University