Multicast Aligns Cable, Consumer Groups

In the early 1990s, consumer groups urged Congress to force cable systems to carry every TV station in the country. Despite a White House veto, "must-carry" became the law of land. Consumer lobbyist Gene Kimmelman worked hand in glove with the National Association of Broadcasters to pass the Cable Act of 1992. But in NAB's latest must-carry fight, Kimmelman is supporting cable, refusing to let nostalgia fog his quest for tactical advantage on Capitol Hill. Kimmelman, policy director for Consumers Union, thinks cable has the better side of the argument. Sharing his view are Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, and Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. "It's baffling to us why Gene Kimmelman and Jeff Chester are siding with the giant cable cartels and against more local program choice for their constituents," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said. Far from being inconsistent, Kimmelman said he looks at each issue individually and decides what's best for consumers, forming alliances that can produce results instead of frustration. "I'm not out to stun the world. I follow what I hope is a very consistent logic that doesn't necessarily fit with the conventional wisdoms of where the consumer people automatically are. At least, I feel I'm being consistent," Kimmelman said in a recent interview. Congress is expected to intervene this fall in connection with legislation ending broadcasters' transition to DTV. Because key lawmakers are as divided as the NAB and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on multicast must-carry, it wouldn't be a shock to learn that the buck had been passed to the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin supports multicast must-carry. The consumer groups oppose multicast must-carry because they see it driving up rates for basic cable, the tier all subscribers must buy and where local TV signals must reside. Must-buy and multicast must-carry are not a recipe for stable cable rates, the consumer groups argue. The NAB claims that without multicast must-carry, local stations won't experiment with new digital services because the 15% of TV households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite is too small of an economic base for financing new and innovative programming. Without multicast must-carry, all viewers would lose the opportunity to access more news, sports and weather reports in addition to community affairs and Spanish programming, according to NAB. The public-service programming that TV stations are promising with multicasting, Kimmelman said, should already be airing on their primary analog service today -- which, he said, explains why he could justify supporting must-carry in 1992 but not multicast must-carry in 2005.
(requires subscription)