Underground cable: a survey of public access programming

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of l H@ includes a clause that would allow cable television operators - who by law have no say in access programming decisions - to ban "indecent" or "obscene" material, or " material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct." Many access providers fear that cable operators - who have often considered access a thorn in their side - could use this clause to meddle with and possibly even shut down access centers. There has been little publicized evidence of what First Amendment freedoms are presently at risk. For the following survey, access center directors were questioned as to what kinds of programming, and by implication what kinds of public service and public debate, were threatened b the clause.

Petitioners led by the Alliance for Community Media's (ACM, a national organization that represents the interests of cable access) impressive, dedicated pro bono lawyers won a dimension, or stay. of the rules. while an appeal of the federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules went forward.(1) This survey was filed as an affidavit in the access centers, brief. On November 23, 1993, a panel only the only three Democrats in what was then an appeals court of 10 judges decided the case in favor of access centers.(2) The court found that the clause effectively makes he government a censor, because by permitting cablers to censor programming, it suggests that they should do so, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The FCC and tne Department of Justice promptly petitioned the appeals court to convene as a whole to rehear the case, and in an unusual move, the court granted the request. On October 19, 1994, the case will be reopened, this time before 11 judges. only four of whom are Democrats. Since the issue involves free and particularly political speech fan issue that crosses ideological lines), and since a Republican judge was among those granting a stay of the FCC rules, access center lawyers remain optimistic. Access center directors insist that the clause is in abeyance because the stay is still in effect. At least one cable operator (a Viacom system in San Francisco) has argued that the law is presently in effect.

ACCESS IN CONTEXT

Access cable - the channels variously known as public, educational and governmental (PEG) and offered to consumers as part of basic cable packages wherever they have been mandated in franchise agreements - is that rare site on cable television where public interest comes before profit. But the past of access cable has been embattled. it was created through struggles by local community activists, and has survived only where constantly defended - in perhaps 15%. of cable systems nationwide. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 further reduced access, protection.

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 did nothing to repair earlier damage and added language that may complicate access, function further. One provision of the act, in fact, could challenge the fundamental purpose of public access and rob it of its unique function within cable television: to permit speakers open access to the community of viewers without censorship. The provision states that a cable operator may prohibit on PEG channels obscene material, sexually explicit conduct, or material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct." It also appears to create liability for cable operators in the case of obscene material although the 1984 act's provision explicitly denying cable operators editorial control over access cable remains in place.

Congress had intended public access cable to serve a unique free speech function on cable systems otherwise editorially controlled by the operator, or by the operator,s lessee in the case of leased access. It was designed to be "the video equivalent of the speaker,s soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet."(3) Public access, mandate is thus linked to the implications of the First Amendment: if it works, it is a public forum, a facilitator of public discussion and action.

Public access is protected in the 1984 act, by requiring cable operators to carry it without interference, making presenters responsible for their own speech. The act provides for viewer control over potentially offensive material by mandating distribution of lockboxes or channel-blocking options to consumers upon request. However, public access, first@come, first-served, open access principle is complicated in practice by the economic interest that local governments and cable companies have in the performance of these channels and by practical questions of scheduling and handling demand on the service.(4)

This study explores the social function of public access through programming that is, or is potentially, controversial. This programming could be in jeopardy with the enforcement of the 1992 act, and therefore provides a checklist of what could be lost. More importantly, such programming provides an indication of access cable's place in the community and how it functions as an electronic public space. The objective of the study was to identify such programming and incidents of prohibiting such programming, and to estimate how access directors perceived that editorial responsibility would alter the function and purpose of access.

Eighty-one access centers were surveyed in November and December 1992. Some 31 access directors - chosen through their participation in ACM - were interviewed by telephone in October and November 1992. Most (20) headed independent nonprofit entities; the rest were functionaries of local government (nine) or the cable company (two). The majority of directors (21) worked in smaller communities, while 10 worked in major cities or state capitals. The sample was regionally diverse, with 13 responses from the East, seven from the Midwest, three from the South, and eight from the West. Roughly speaking, this diversity was typical of the population of ACM, and probably of access nationwide (although this phenomenon is dispersed and localized enough to lack dependable national statistics).(5)

A mail survey, sent to some 200 access directors on the mailing list of ACM, posed the same questions. Among the 50 respondents, N headed nonprofit entities. Seven centers were run by the city, and four by the cable company (six were some combination, usually city-run nonprofits). Thirty-nine centers were located in smaller communities; 11 were in major cities or state capitals. Twenty-two came from the East, 15 from the Midwest, three from the South, and 10 from the West.(6) All access directors were asked the following questions:

1) Do you or anyone else prescreen programming on public access for content or technical reasons? If so, how does this affect programming, especially live programming? How much staff time does it take? 2) Does your system have the capacity to block channels or programs, or provide lockboxes? 3) Has anyone ever prohibited - or attempted to prohibit - someone from running a program on public access? What happened? 4) How much staff time do you think it would take to prescreen programming on public access? What impact would it have on the budget? Would programming be delayed? 5) Do you have live programming now on public access? (Please give an example.) How do you think it would be affected if you were legally responsible for the programming, as you might become under some interpretations of the 1992 Cable Act? 6) If up to now you had been legally responsible for the programming on public access, is there a program(s) you might have considered not carrying, whether because of your own or board or city cable company concern? Issues include sexual content, nudity, language or because it promotes unlawful conduct - for instance, gambling, civil disobedience, anti-abortion actions. (Could you include the title, a brief description, if possible when it was carded, and tell us briefly why you might not carry it.) 7) Has the cable operator issued any new rules or procedures as a result of the 1992 act?

TESTING THE LIMITS

Access programming varies dramatically from locality to locality; what may be acceptable in Cambridge, Massachusetts is unimaginable in Defiance, Ohio or Olympia, Washington. But cable access usually provides a unique venue in electronic media for unpopular opinions, minority viewpoints or expressions of minority culture. Access directors typically believe that production usually reflects a concern somewhere in that community. "If it has an audience," said director Deb Vinsel in Olympia," it's part of your community, even if you wish it were not."

TAPED PROGRAMMING

Access directors, when asked to consider pre-recorded programming that a cautious programmer might reject for fear of being interpreted as containing soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct, almost universally cited several kinds of examples: - Sex education, particularly AIDS education. Series such as Fairfax (VA) Cable Access Corporation,s Gay Fairfax, Grand Rapids (MI) Community Media Center,s The Lambda Report, and Tucson (AZ) Community Cable Corporation's Empty Closet would all be suspect for "sexually explicit conduct" related to AIDS education. So would be one-time programs such as Cambridge (MA) Community TV's Truth or Consequences: A Guide to Safe Sex at MIT; AIDS, a documentary cablecast at Spring Point Community Television Center in South Portland (ME); and an AIDS prevention special involving role playing at Kalamazoo (MI) Community Access Center.

- Health education. In Amherst (MA), a video of a home birth might have fallen under scrutiny. Desperately Seeking Susan, a program in Olympia (WA), hosted by a therapist, has featured delicate subjects, including one program concerning non-orgasmic women, with frank discussion of sexual behavior.

- Political fringe opinions, for potentially soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct. Libertarians, anarchists, rightists, and leftists all variously use cable access to promote political opinion slighted by the gatekeepers of mainstream media. As well, passionate believers in particular political issues, such as abortion or homosexual rights, look to this venue.

For instance, in Grand Rapids (MI), producers of a regular series Lies of Our Times have periodically endorsed sanctuary for Latin American refugees and encouraged blockades of government offices in protest of various official positions. In Sacramento (CA), Libertarian Conspiracy producers, in accord with their minimalist approach to government, decry the criminalization of marijuana. Tucson (AZ), access center director Sam Behrend notes that both Libertarian Review and Time for Hemp, a regular series by supporters of legalization of marijuana, might become suspect programs; similarly a one-time program in Kalamazoo (MI), Cannabis might not have run. In Middlebury (VT), RU486 Legal Forum, debating the introduction of an abortion pill," might well fall under cautious editorial scrutiny.

A Fort Wayne (IN) late night weekly program Ganymedian Slime Moid, produced by an idiosyncratic leftist, might not be acceptable simply for it unpredictability, according to access director Rick Hayes, another local program, American Atheists, might be suspect simply for not conforming to mainstream beliefs. in at least one case in a regular program in Portland (OR), a speaker recommended direct and illegal action to protect old timber growth. Teenagers at Middlebury (VT) Community TV produced Warning. Skateboarding Is Dangerous, a program that demonstrates youths defying the anti-skateboarding law they criticized in the tape.

Public affairs programs sponsored by a local access center member but imported, (produced elsewhere) were also the frequent subject of concern. Several centers reported that the talk show Alternative Views, produced through the Austin (TX) access center but distributed wherever the program finds a local sponsor, often draws criticism for its leftist perspective. This program might be vulnerable to censorship, despite offering a clear example of the long-standing goal of diverse and antagonistic sources" in a democratic society,s media.@ Similarly the regular programming of Deep Dish TV, an organization that anthologizes local access programming and packages it around themes ranging from agriculture to AIDS to border cultures, has been a source of contention in some communities, where access center directors nonetheless see it as offering an important alternative perspective.

Several access centers (Forest Park, OH, Fort Wayne, IN; Sacramento, CA; Kalamazoo, MI; Portland, OR; Dayton, OH; South Portland, ME; Portland, ME) reported either local or imported programs opposing abortion some produced by Operation Rescue, that either encourage blocking of access to abortion clinics or include graphic, potentially offensive images, or both. These programs would be suspect under a gatekeeping arrangement.

In Oregon during the election season of 1992, ballot measure 9, which would have criminalized some homosexual behavior, was hotly debated on access cable. Access center directors in Portland and Salem reported extensive use, both in live and taped programs, of access by opposing sides of the issue. Both sides incorporated material that might have been perceived as sexually explicit.

Another topical instance was the Gulf War, where access cable was a rare site of dissent, including a series of programs by Deep Dish TV. This programming was typically controversial. For instance, in Winsted (CT), the Mad River TV access service weathered demands to remove anti-Gulf War programming while it was being cablecast. The Flying Focus Video Collective, a production group in Portland (OR), has taken controversial stands on issues ranging from the Gulf War to local environmental issues.

- Cultural minorities. Young people eagerly use access cable both to,speak to their own peers and to speak about underrepresented experiences in mainstream media. A program wildly popular with teenagers, Silly Goose, was for one season a weekly comely program in adolescent taste in Defiance (OH). (Director, Norm Compton recalled one episode that featured the theme of running with scissors.) Other regular local programs in that area that promoted youth culture on access were Musical Mayhem, featuring music videos, and Hard Hits, a rap show produced by a young African American man.

Similarly, in Olympia (WA), a youth@oriented music video program, Mosher's Mayhem, accounts for both a passionate teen audience and the bulk of the occasional complaints to the service. in Grand Rapids (MI), Blackwatch focuses on the language and images of inner city youth. Maiden's (MA) public access center has endured controversy over youthful productions marked vulgar language.

- Programs that experiment with the form a otherwise stake a claim to art. Such programs have become controversial in Sacramento, Amherst, and Davis (CA); Arlington (VA); and on Washington, D.C.'s DCTV system, and have been a perennial source of contention public access.

In general, taped programming regularly appears on public access in ways that simultaneously serve the central mandate of the service and also offend some sensibilities.

LIVE PROGRAMMING

Live programming on public access reveals the social utility of potentially offensive programming in sometimes dramatic ways. Live programming, can only be halted with. a delay system beyond the budget Of most access centers; it can only be safe, if both subject and participants can be counted on to avoid the extremes of opinion that presently characterize public access. Most centers surveyed offer live and interactive programming" and find they draw eager participation from viewers. Access center directors highlighted various kinds of programming, demonstrating the role of access cable as a public forum that might be in jeopardy under a gatekeeping arrangement:

- Sex and health education. This is an area in which live programming often draws an engaged, youthful audience. in Chicago, AIDS Call@in Live receives phone calls, most of which come from African American youthful according to director Barbara Popovic. A typical interchange was the phone call of one 17-year-old woman who wanted to know how to respond to a boyfriend who assured her they need not use condoms because he was "loyal" to her. The conversation was frank and colloquial on both sides, while providing the the viewer with much-needed information. As well, on air, speakers hold up items such as condoms and dental dams, and explain their use.

On public access cable in Austin (TX), a program called Midnight Whispers frankly encourages viewers to call in to share their sexual fantasies, so that an on-air registered nurse can respond to them and discuss safe sex practices. The Portland (OR), AIDS Forum Live similarly might raise concern. A Tucson (AZ), program, Bridges, produced by and for the disabled, has featured AIDS education involving anatomical models. in Sacramento (CA), the monthly Health in America program on alternative and holistic health options, has featured graphic images of women with mastectomies and damaged breast implants. The director of Defiance (OH) Community TV (which also carries government and educational programming) wondered what might happen to now-televised city council meetings if, for instance, anti-pornography groups are present, and there is the threat of "indecent" or obscene, materials being aired on cable access.

- Topical call-in. In Sacramento (CA), within hours of the Rodney King trial verdict a special edition of the weekly Live Wire community call-in program was aired, with scores of viewers, most apparently African American, responding to a host known in the community for his success in working with alienated youth. Although the staff found that the discussion was less raw than expected, it was a potentially volatile moment.

Programs such as Fort Wayne's (IN) live program Speak Out and Tucson's (AZ) You're the Expert touch on controversial local issues ranging from street signs to police behavior, without any way of predicting how callers might behave. NDC Community TV in West St. Paul (MN) aired the series Facts not Friends, concerning 1992 electoral politics, that the access director saw as expanding the debate. in South Portland (ME), during the Gulf War, participants suggested illegal actions as protest.

- Minority cultures. The Fort Wayne (IN) program Coalition for Unlearning Racism, a live twice-monthly program, deals with topics about which, as Hayes put it, "people are already irate,,, and has been the site of heated discussion about racism. Hayes values the program, not because he thinks it changes the minds of extremists, but because public dialogue, including with extremists, educates the community. On the same system is the program Message to the Black Man, a black nationalist program that purveys a distinctly minority view in Fort Wayne.

As with recorded programming, teenagers make extensive use of this rare public forum. In Tucson (AZ) teens produce a live program called The Forbidden Zone, in which they talk in the slang and curse@laden jargon of their peers, involving sexually explicit language and sometimes addressing illegal activities such as drug use. Similarly, the live teen show Active Butch/Pensive Willy in Newton Highlands (MA), has, with the raw language of callins, roused the ire of an access board member. White Bear Lake's (MN) Cable TV North Central also hosts a teen talk show with the "racy language" typical of that subculture.

Access directors often singled out live programming as of particular interest to their audience. "Live material like AIDS Call-in Live is what's best in access," said Popovic."If this can't be on, then it's the baby and the bathwater."

PRESCREENING AND BANNING PROGRAMMING

Many access centers surveyed do not prescreen any material. In one case, Somerville Community Access TV, the present community-run nonprofit began in response to outrage over the cable-run access center,s prescreening of tapes. A substantial minority of access centers (for example, those in Washington, D.C., Dayton, OH; Fairfax, VA; Vail, CO; Wilmington, MA; Rye, NY; Iowa City, IA; Wakefield, MA; Fayetteville, AK) do some spot-checking or technical screening, especially in order to verify the transmission quality of material not produced through the access center. The goal of these spot-checks is both to maintain transmission standards and to facilitate suitable scheduling of material not appropriate for minors.

In places where prescreening is built into the staff's work schedule (for example, at Prince George's Community Television, Landover, MD and at Pittsburgh Community Television, Pittsburgh, PA) estimates of time it now takes to do prescreening range from 10 to 18 hours a week; however, this prescreening is not currently done under the constraints of the new law and it usually does not have to be performed,by a person of authority.

In Olympia, as in several other access centers including that in Somerville there was no prescreening, but producers were given guidelines developed in conjunction with the city or cable operator instructing them to place potentially offensive programs on late at night. Many access centers have guidelines that producers are required to read and certify that they abide by.

Public access directors do become adept at dealing with complaints from viewers, as well as cable officials. But according to the directors interviewed, rarely have complaints resulted in prohibition of programming, and then usually only after the show in question has run at least once.

Several reported incidents of attempted programming intervention indicate the importance of an independent public forum for controversial political issues. A Cincinnati channel accepted a tape from one political party during the 1991 local elections. The opposing party promptly obtained a restraining order, although it had the right to air its own program, and the access center,s staff had volunteered to help produce one. Ultimately, the complaining party lost in court, and the original tape was aired. Several years ago, in the small town of Defiance, town officials attempted - again, unsuccessfully - to block a program criticizing the town,s plan to privatize emergency medical services. In Marshall, Minnesota, the city council attempted to block the transmission of a tape of a demonstration against ordinances and owners of a mobile home park, but was eventually dissuaded by the access director,s First Amendment arguments.

Other reported cases of banning programming usually involved questions of taste and decency. For instance, in Columbus, in september 1992 the city, which controls

Other reported cases of banning program involved questions of taste and decency. For instance, in Columbus, in September 1992, the city, which controls transmission from the independent nonprofit center, responded to complaints about frontal nudity in a program on gays and AIDS by dropping the program after a short run. Upon legal consultation, however, the city reversed its decision as the program could not be considered pornography, and the show was reinstated in the center's rotation.

In an ongoing case in Sacramento, a representative incident appears to be part of a larger struggle between the center, the city, and the cable company. The cable company representative has seized upon a viewer complaint about a videoplay, Dinosaurs, and argued for shutting down the independently-run center, which is operated through funds allocated by the city. Written and produced by a local man. the play involved scenes of nudity and sexual aggression as part of the author's social critique. The center,s aftorney has advised the center that the piece is not obscene but director Ron Cooper recalls that the local cable operator, long a grudging supporter of the service, recently warned him that he would "shut [him] down," warning that he had the approval of the multi-system owner to take the case to court.

EXPANDING SPEECH

Calls for banning programming sometimes result in reasoned accommodation such as guidelines, devised by aldermanic and cable boards, being given directly to producers. Sometimes, attempts to ban programming can act as a powerful threat. When a program produced by and for teenagers, Streetwatch, ran on Columbus Community Cable Access several years ago and frank sexual language offended city officials enough to pull the program from rotation briefly, the board was badly shaken.

"When government taps you on the shoulder and tries to crush it at the same time, you take notice," recalled center director Carl Kucharski. He notes that several board members, whose corporations did business with the city, felt particularly vulnerable to official discontent. Over a period of months the board contemplated ways to prescreen programming, but could not find a workable arrangement. it eventually returned to its open access policy.

Currently, access center directors confront controversy by encouraging more speech, not only by allowing all voices a hearing but also by encouraging complainants to make use of training and production assistance, and by explaining the philosophy of the access center. This process appears to expand the forum for speech, not only for producers but for viewers, who have the opportunity to call in and express their opinions.

At Malden Access TV in Massachetts, director Rika Welsh recalled a program produced by local youths in the summer of 1992 with what was to my taste and probably yours an excessive amount of profanity., After the program, the center hosted a lively two hour call-in session concerning the controversial program. Said Welsh, "That's what public access is all about - creating that public space. it allows the community to speak to issues; it's not just about the programming itself."

At Waycross Community TV in Forest Park, Ohio, director Greg Vawter pointed to responses to a racial hate message posted on a nearby suburban computer bulletin board system. Several of his access center's board members composed and aired passionate arguments against intolerance, part of a community-wide electronic conversation. Hayes of the Fort Wayne library system,s public access channel noted that a well-established twice-weekly. program, Coalition for Unlearning Racism, supported by the local NAACP and Urban League among others, began as a response to the possibility of carrying the Ku Klux Kian's Race and Reason (which never ran). The process of producing the program also brought together nine groups that had not previously worked together.

COST OF PRESCREENING

The provisions on prohibition of programming and liability for obscene material in the 1992 act would change the terms of PEG access dramatically, if they involve permitting or requiring operators or access centers to exercise editorial control, particularly by letting On cable operator require certifications or prescreenings by the access center.(8)

Within the cable industry there appears to be concern over the prospect of exercising new editorial power, of gaining greater control over, or even freedom from, access channels. At least one cable operator has already advised its access cable center to forward "all programming which contains sexual, excretory or other behavior or depictions, or language which potentially may be offensive to the citizens of Tucson" to the system for prior screening.(9) A variety of cable-interest commentators in the FCC docket who were open to discussing implementation of this provision supported a battery of guidelines, including requiring that access centers prescreen, certify, or obtain certifications, and that they indemnify the operator for liability.(10) Industry leader Time Warner has also argued that it should no longer be required to carry access channels because operators are already liable for obscenity on such channels.(11)

There are immediate practical implications for access centers, aside from larger questions of the impact on a centers social function and mandate, of requirements to prescreen, certify, or otherwise editorially control programming. Access center directors typically estimate that between one day a week and two full-time staff jobs

There are immediate practical implications for access centers, aside from larger questions of the impact on a center's social function and mandate, of requirements to prescreen, certify, or otherwise editorially control programming. Access center directors typically estimate that between one day a week and two full-time staff jobs would be required to prescreen and assess programming for the channel. (Some systems generate more than 3500 program hours a year.) Most assume it would delay programming. None of the directors suggested it was possible to increase budgets in the present difficult economic period, and several noted that the job would have to be performed by someone in a position of authority, usually themselves.

The cost would thus be measured in terms of lost production assistance, training, and community outreach - in short, a crippling of the service itself. Hap Haasch of Ann Arbor Community Access TV noted, The real cost is not having staff available for almost a third of the work week." One director in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, called the time required devastating to our already busy schedule." Medfield, Massachesetts Cable 8's director wrote that prescreening would CRUSH [sic] our access activity," raising the budget by 11 percent and doubling the fund-raising needs.

In many cases (for example, Anderson Community TV, Cincinnati, OH; Winthrop, MA; Salina, KS; Holland, MI; Turner's Falls, MA; Ann Arbor, MI; Grand Rapids, MI; Fort Wayne, IN; Forest Park, OH; Glenview, IL; Maplewood, MN; Bellevue. NE) directors said they would probably have to eliminate all live programming. At other channels, such as Cincinnati Community Video, some live programming would be eliminated. Also in Cincinnati, intercommunity Cable Regulatory Commission official Patricia Havlik said, "We'd probably have to drop the public access program - we can,t afford to prescreen, we have no facilities or staff for it."

"There is not enough staff to supervise call-in lines or audio, control guests on programs or distinguish between `safe' and `dangerous' programs," wrote the director of Winthrop Community Access TV in Massachusetts. Therefore, he noted, programs of indisputable value, completely lacking in any controversial material, might be lost. For example, on October 30, 1991, when a terrible storm swept the area, the cable service provided seven hours of live coverage, giving information about street closings, flooding, evacuation routes, and emergency shelters. Such programming, he suggested, would be eliminated along with all other live programming under certification or prescreening arrangements.

The 1984 act provides for viewers who reject such a forum Lockboxes or the consumer option of channel-blocking was required by the act, for access as well as for commercial channels, and would appear, from this survey, to be widely available. in the 31 interviews conducted, all but one person, who did not know, said their system had these capacities. in two cases, directors interviewed said that the company either appeared unwilling to block the channel or simply did not publicize consumers, ability to do so. In the 50 written surveys, 38 reported lockboxes available, although one said that they were not available for public access, and two said they did not know. By contrast. introducing editorial control over public access could, on the basis of access center directors, experience, violate the central concept of access cable.

Access directors hive evolved a variety of mechanisms to deal with First Amendment rights conflicts. The process has renewed their commitment to public access as a broad public forum, open even to unpopular speech. Several access directors, when asked to estimate the cost of implementing basic screening processes, initially refused to entertain the idea, responding with remarks like "I'd quit first," and "I'd go into another line of work." The access director for Mad River TV of Winsted, Connecticut, wrote in answer to a question about the cost of prescreening, Impossible to budget - we just wouldn't do it". Their attitudes appear to be reinforced by the record of diverse programming that has a unique venue in public access.

CONCLUSION

Public access cable, seen through the atypical angle of its most controversial programming, provides a unique role in electronic media. Unlike standard consumer cable service, public access cable only comes to life when the community produces it. The programming produced by various community interests with minimal access to mainstream media showcases concerns of a subculture to itself in its own language, whether through public affairs, dramatic work, or comedy. This is apparent in programs by, for instance, African Americans, gays and lesbians, and youth. Cable access also performs a larger civic function. it acts as an electronic public space. where citizens can not only hear about issues of public concern but participate in the creation of that debate, whether through creating programming or through participating in the discussions both on and off the cable service precipitated by the expanding of the arena for free speech. High-flown rhetoric about the promise of the information superhighway makes it easy to believe that technology will fix long-standing problems of media access and diversity of expression. The precarious state of access cable reminds us that political savvy and economic clout fulfill - or constrain - technological promise. Access cable must continue to fight for its life, fueled by a combination of grassroots activism and dedicated legal work.(12)

NOTES

(1.) James Horwood of the firm of Spiegel and McDermott and an ACM board member, aided by Joseph Van Eaton of Miller and Holbrooke, has guided ACM,S legal work over the years. At Shea and Gardner, Michael Greenberger, David Bono and Michael Isenman graciously undertook, on a pro bono basis, the laborious task of the appeal. (2.) Alliance for Community Media, The Alliance for Communications Democracy, The American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way versus FCC, D.C. Circuit, 93-1169. (3.) The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, U.S. House of Representatives, 1984, pp. 21-22. (4.) Michael Meyerson, "The Right to Speak, the Right to Hear and the Right not to Hear: The technological resolution to the cable/pornography debate," University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 21, nos. 1-2. (5.) The following access directors, in alphabetical order, were interviewed by telephone; Sam Behrend, Tucson (AZ) Community Cable Corporation; Rick Bell, Tampa (FL) Cable TV; Joan Burke, Community Access Center (Kalamazoo, MI); Alan Bushong, Capital Community TV (Salem, OR); Mary Bennin Cardona, Glenview fill Television; Norm Compton, Defiance FOHI Community TV; Paul Congo, Austin (TX) Community TV; Ron Cooper, Access Sacramento (CA); Patricia Havlik, Intercommunity Cable Regulatory Commission (Cincinnati, OH); Rick Hayes, All County Public Library Public Access (Fort Wayne, IN); Irwin Hipsman. Cambridge (MA) Community TV; Dirk Koning. Grand Rapids (MI) Community Media Center; Carl Kucharski. Columbus (OH) Community Cable Access; Myra Lenburg, Amherst (MA) Community TV; Deb Luppold, Portland (OR) Cable Access TV; John Madding, Wadsworth (OH) Community TV; Paula Manley, Taulatin Valley (OR) Community Access; Fernando Moreno, City County Access TV (Albuquerque, NM); Jeff Neidert, City of Brunswick, OH; Abigail Norman, Somerville (MA) Community Access TV; Barbara Popovic, Chicago Access Corporation; Tony Riddle, Minneapolis (MN) TV Network; Alex Quinn, Manhattan Neighborhood Network; Nartz Rickard. DC Public Access Corporation (Washington, D.C.); Suzanne Silverthorn, Vail Valley (CO) community TV; Fred Thomas, Fairfax (VA) Cable Access Corporation; Greg Vawter, Waycross Community TV (Forest Park, OH); Deb Vinsel, Thurston Community TV (Olympia, WA); David Vogel, Community TV of Knoxville (TN); Rika Welsh, Malden (MA) Access TV. (6.) Surveys were sent out November 16, 1992, and those received by December 23, 1992, are included here, alphabetized by town. township or country of origin: AACAT. Ann Arbor, MI; Arlington Community TV, Arlington, VA; Baltimore Cable Access Corp., Baltimore MD; Bellevue Community Television, Bellevue, NE; Bethel Park Public Access TV, Bethel Park, PA; Cincinnati Community Video Cincinnati, OH; Anderson Community Television (Anderson Township), Cincinnati, OH; Davis Community TV, Davis, CA; DATV, Dayton, OH; Denver Community TV, Denver, CO, Access 4, Fayetteville, AK; WFRN, Ferndale, MI; Fitchburg Access TV. Fitchburg. MA; College Cable Access Center, Fort Wayne. IN; Public Access TV, Vision 26, Iowa City, IA; Prince George's Community Television, Landover, MD; CTV 20, Londonderry, NH; PAC 8, Los Alamos, NM; Suburban Community Channels, Maplewood, MN; Studio El, Community Access TV, Marshall, MN; Nashoba Cable Community TV, Nashoba, MA; Medfield Cable B, Medfield, MA; Medway Cable Access Corporation, Medway, MA; Mountain View Community TV, Mountain View, CA; Middlebury Community TV, Middlebury, VT; Monrovia City Hall (KGEM), Monrovia, IL; Newton Cable, Newton Highland, MA; Mid-Peninsula Access Corp., Palo Alto, CA; Pittsburgh Community Television, Pittsburgh, PA; Portland Community Access Center, Portland, ME; Sierra Nevada Community Access TV, Reno, NV; Montgomery Community TV, Rockville, MD; RCTV, Rye, NY; Community Access TV of Salina, Salina, KS; Saratoga Community Access TV, Saratoga, CA; Viacom Community TV, Seattle, WA; NDC-TV, St. Paul, MN; SPTV, South Portland, ME; Montague Community TV, Turners Falls, MA; Wakefield Community Access TV, Wakefield, MA; Westbrook Cable Channel, Westbrook, ME; Cable TV North Central, White Bear Lake, MN; Windsor, CT; Wilmington Community TV, Wilmington, MA; Mad River TV, Winsted, CT; Winthrop Community Access TV, Winthrop, MA; Yakima Community TV, Yakima, WA. (7.) Associated Press versus U.S., 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945). (8.) U.S. FCC. 1992a; U.S. FCC 1992b. (9.) David Rozzelle, Intermedia Partners, to Sam Behrend, Tucson (AZ) Community Cable Corporation, November 13, 1992. The request to date has not been honored. TCCC responded on November 20, 1992, with a letter reminding the company that no regulation implementing the law had yet been promulgated, and that in any case the operator was not liable for the programming types mentioned. (10.). U.S. FCC 1992c. (11.) U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C. Time Warner Entertainment versus FCC et al, 92-2494. (12.) The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Tamar Rotem in administering the written survey. The Freedom Forum and the School of Communication at the American University, Washington, D.C. both provided resources to conduct this research.

PATRICIA AUFDERHEIDE is an associate professor in the School of Communication at The American University and Senior Editor of in These Times newspaper.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Visual Studies Workshop
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group