home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94TT0841>
- <title>
- Jun. 27, 1994: Television:Cable's Big Squeeze
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
- Jun. 27, 1994 An American Tragedy
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- THE ARTS & MEDIA/TELEVISION, Page 66
- Cable's Big Squeeze
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p> New channels are lining up for space, but good ideas are being
- shoved aside by more of the same old thing
- </p>
- <p>By Richard Zoglin--Reported by S.C. Gwynne/Austin, Texas, Martha Smilgis/Los Angeles,
- William Tynan/New York and Adam Zagorin/Washington
- </p>
- <p> Tom Bergeron and Laurie Hibberd are new on the job, but already
- they are the most laid-back personalities on morning television.
- While camera operators and stagehands wander in and out of shots,
- the co-hosts of Breakfast Time, a new morning show on the fX
- cable network, sidle from room to room in their spacious, apartment-like
- set in New York City. When not trading quips with a wisecracking
- hand puppet, they introduce segments that make Good Morning
- America look like The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour: a visit to an
- Oklahoma ostrich farm; an interview with a Florida man who makes
- furniture out of junk; a live report on Hula-Hoopers in the
- park across the street. This is homemade TV--and proud of
- it. On the show's first broadcast, Bergeron playfully chased
- his executive producer around the set and accidentally broke
- a lamp. "You're watching our final day on fX," joked Bergeron.
- "Tomorrow the Lint Channel will be here."
- </p>
- <p> Maybe the Lint Channel has already arrived. fX, launched three
- weeks ago by the Fox network, is perhaps the ultimate example
- of disposable television. Along with its lighter-than-air morning
- show and a slate of oh-so-familiar network reruns (Hart to Hart,
- Batman, Family Affair), the channel features a pet show, a consumer
- guide to rock CDs and a collectibles program. If it weren't
- for a Nightline-style interview show hosted by former CBS correspondent
- Jane Wallace, the network would be so insubstantial that it
- might float away.
- </p>
- <p> Yet fX and two other similarly superfluous channels created
- by broadcast networks are the most potent newcomers on the jammed
- cable dial. Fox's entry went on the air with a subscriber count
- of 18 million homes--the largest start-up figure for any cable
- service in history. Nearly 11 million homes are expected to
- be on board July 4, when NBC introduces America's Talking, a
- new network consisting of--are you ready, America?--nothing
- but talk shows. Last October ABC launched ESPN2, a hipper, younger
- version of cable's largest sports network; it currently reaches
- 12.8 million cable homes.
- </p>
- <p> For years, cable visionaries have promised a day when everyone
- from sailing enthusiasts to opera lovers would have a cable
- channel to suit his tastes. But the new cable programmers are
- pursuing a more old-fashioned strategy: aiming for a broad-based
- audience by replicating fare that already gluts the airwaves.
- Meanwhile dozens of other worthy cable aspirants--channels
- devoted to history, health, fine arts, golf--are struggling
- to be born. There may well be an audience for more knockoffs
- of Oprah, more sappy morning shows and more reruns of Dynasty.
- But viewers looking for the diverse array of niche programming
- that cable once promised are still looking. What has gone wrong?
- </p>
- <p> One answer is that, remarkable as it may seem, the cable dial
- is full. The much hyped 500-channel future is years away, and
- for now the average cable system has only about 40 slots for
- programming. Take away the dial positions that must be given
- to over-the-air stations and public-access channels, and there
- aren't nearly enough spaces for the more than 70 basic-cable
- services vying for an audience--and for the advertising revenue
- they need in order to survive.
- </p>
- <p> Actual crowding on the dial, however, is only part of the problem.
- A more important roadblock to new channels, in the view of the
- cable industry, is government regulation. In the 1992 Cable
- Act, Congress responded to consumer complaints about the rising
- cost of cable service by instructing the Federal Communications
- Commission to regulate rates. The FCC proceeded to roll back
- current rates and to establish a strict formula for how much
- cable operators could raise them in the future.
- </p>
- <p> While consumers rejoiced, the cable industry griped that the
- regulations took away the incentive to add new programming to
- their basic service--those packages of channels offered for
- a flat monthly fee. The regulations allow systems to pass along
- the cost of new channels plus 7.5%, but cable operators complain
- that the percentage is too small to make carrying such channels
- worth it. Hence few new channels on basic cable. "In regulating
- the industry," contends Carter Maguire, executive vice president
- of sales for Turner Cable Network, "the FCC has paralyzed it."
- </p>
- <p> Instead of adding new basic services, cable systems have turned
- their attention to channels that can bring in revenue unhindered
- by the rate caps: premium services (such as HBO and Showtime),
- home-shopping networks (from which cable operators get a portion
- of the sales income) and pay-per-view movies. One of the biggest
- growth areas is adult-movie channels--a lucrative business,
- since the cable operator typically can keep 70% or more of the
- $4 to $5 customers shell out for an evening of soft-core sex.
- </p>
- <p> But if cable systems are refusing to add new basic channels,
- how did fX and ESPN2 and America's Talking end up getting carried?
- It has less to do with must-see programming than with deals
- struck between the cable industry and Fox, ABC and NBC. Traditionally,
- cable systems have been able to retransmit local broadcast stations
- for free. The four broadcast networks, which own local stations
- in big markets, have always been frustrated by this situation,
- and in 1992 they were allowed to seek retransmission payments
- from the cable operators. The cable companies refused to pay,
- however, so a compromise was reached. The networks dropped their
- demand for money, and in return the cable systems agreed to
- carry and pay for new cable channels that the networks would
- devise. (CBS bungled this battle and ended up with nothing.)
- </p>
- <p> These network-owned channels have been guaranteed carriage in
- major markets; the fate of other cable newcomers has been much
- different. In April, Ted Turner launched Turner Classic Movies,
- which offers many vintage, long-unseen films from Turner's MGM
- and Warner Bros. archives. Cable systems serving only 250,000
- homes were persuaded to sign up. Horizons Cable Network, a PBS-backed
- channel that plans to cover lectures, panel discussions and
- other educational and cultural events, had hoped to debut later
- this year, but it was forced to delay the launch after cable
- systems representing 6 million homes, citing rate restrictions,
- backed out of a commitment to carry it. Ovation, a proposed
- fine-arts network, and the History Channel, offering documentaries
- and historical movies and mini-series, both plan a January launch
- but are having a hard time building up a subscriber base. "The
- way the rules are structured today," says Barry Rosenblum, president
- of Time Warner Cable of New York, "cable operators are only
- motivated to launch services that are unregulated. And those
- may not be the best services for our customers."
- </p>
- <p> Established cable services are suffering as well. Officials
- at C-SPAN, chronicler of Congress and government activity, say
- the channel has been booted off or cut back in systems representing
- 4.2 million homes. "The regulatory environment is making our
- life miserable," says C-SPAN president Brian Lamb.
- </p>
- <p> FCC chairman Reed Hundt has promised that the agency will listen
- to the cable industry's complaints and consider refining the
- rules. Consumer advocates, though, scoff at cable's cries of
- pain. "When I hear a cable operator say he can't add a new channel,"
- says Bradley Stillman, legislative counsel to the Consumer Federation
- of America, "I wonder how many shopping channels he's got on
- the air, or how many channels in which he has a financial interest.
- Channel decisions are driven by many factors--and the industry
- is trying to blame it all on the FCC and the 1992 cable law."
- </p>
- <p> Whoever is to blame, the oversupply of reruns and chat on the
- cable dial has become oppressive, the attempts to breathe new
- life into them almost laughably desperate. America's Talking
- will offer such quirky variants on the talk-show form as Am
- I Nuts? (psychologists offer advice to people facing everyday
- stress) and Pork (its single topic: government waste). On ESPN2,
- the hotshot hosts can be abrasive enough to provoke violence
- (New Orleans Saints quarterback Jim Everett, taunted by interviewer
- Jim Rome this spring, overturned a table and pounced on him).
- </p>
- <p> Increasingly, the theme is homegrown, back-to-basics TV. Spurred
- by the need to look different and to do it cheaply, new channels
- proudly let the seams show--a throwback to the earliest days
- of TV--and stress spontaneity and viewer participation--an attempt to achieve the intimacy of talk radio. Anne Sweeney,
- chairman of fX, says her channel's goal is to create "a national
- network based on a local feel." America's Talking will use interactive
- technology to get viewers involved. "This is a place where Americans
- can come, pull up a chair, pour a cup of coffee and join the
- national dialogue," says head of programming Elizabeth Tilson.
- </p>
- <p> But televised talk radio and the return of Hart to Hart were
- not all that the cable revolution was supposed to bring us.
- Maybe, when the tide of banality has run its course, viewers
- will finally be fed up and start turning to the cornucopia of
- choices that cable was supposed to offer--and, one day, may
- actually provide.
- </p>
- <p>WHAT YOU`RE GETTING, WHAT YOU`RE NOT
- <table>
- <tblhdr><cell>Channel<cell>Owner<cell>Cable Homes (in millions)
- <row><cell type=a>WINNERS<cell type=a><cell type=i>
- <row><cell>fX<cell>FOX<cell>18
- <row><cell>America's Talking<cell>NBC<cell>10.8
- <row><cell>ESPN2<cell>ABC<cell>12.8
- <row><cell>LOSERS<cell><cell>
- <row><cell>C-SPAN<cell>Cable-company funded<cell>56.5
- <row><cell>Turner Movie Classics<cell>Turner Broadcasting<cell>1
- <row><cell>The History Channel<cell>A & E<cell>.5-1
- </table>
- </p>
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-
-