Jose P.

Chaparro
STS.001

Cable Dreams

The opportunities that have been afforded to us by cable television were not always

foreseen. At its early beginning, cable, like most technologies, came into our lives gradually.

CATV, community antenna television, was an effort to extend broadcast television to places

where it was unavailable. An already existing service was using another technology to bring

the same content to people's homes. It would not have been intuitive to differentiate CATV

from broadcast television during its establishment in the 40s and 50s. However, as service

providers realized their potential for new programming in the 60s and 70s they entered the

'blue skies' period. The power of this distribution technology was idealized – cable television

would empower the viewers, address niche interests, and provide a variety of views that might

reflect the true diversity of our country.1

The reality of cable television through today has not lived up to those dreams. There is

indeed a growing variety of channels, hundreds of times the number available three decades

ago. Among these there are targeted networks that attempt to represent the niche interests of

certain minority audiences. Channels in different languages, foreign channels, and dubbing

simulcasts are available to reach different multicultural audiences. The content offers

superficially different political and cultural views, but the service providers have become

merely part of larger global media conglomerates. Viacom, The Walt Disney Company, Time

Warner and News Corporation own almost every channel available on cable and broadcast

television.2 Investment groups, like Liberty Media, often own shares in two or more of these

1
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

four conglomerates. The concentration of distribution power lies in these few corporations,

and their efforts are limited to appeal to groups with a large market share. They target a

couple channels to women, African Americans, Latinos, gays, etc. At the same time they have

to restrict their content in terms of language and subject based on the sensibilities of the

majority, whether overall or within their targeted demographic.

Finally, as we enter a new century, the cable industry faces new technology that will

change how we understand distribution completely. Digital home recorders present a

fundamental challenge to traditional advertising, and the digital distribution of programs and

films undermines both the order of programming, on-demand pay-per-view, and the concept

of channels itself. If people begin to buy their programs on an individual basis, the media

conglomerates will have to target their audiences through the actual content of a show / film,

rather than the marketing of a channel. There is a chance again, with this new wave of

technology, to fulfill the dream of cable television. This may be a pipe dream, since the bulk

of the production power lies in the same conglomerates who will have to reorganize their

distribution models. If they choose to sell subscriptions to groups of programs or re-introduce

the traditional advertising scheme, we may have advanced little.

In order to understand the social importance of cable television it is important to place

it in the context of broadcast television. By the time the service began to grow in earnest

during the late 40s and 50s, broadcast television had already established some of the major

networks that we know today.3 They had similar programming that would set comparable

2
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

programs to compete against each other during the same time-slots. The rise of cable

television was a necessity based on the technological limitations of broadcasting. Geographic

or demographic conditions could strand some populations outside of broadcaster's reach. It

served to fill in the gaps of broadcasting service, first in areas that received no service before,

and later in areas that had it, but wanted more options. This is a special case where the

science of broadcasting shaped public policy, policy had effects on the technology that would

make social impact, and set the stage for new technology to forge its own place in the midst

of these varied forces.

The history of broadcasting begins with radio, before television. The basic science

behind both is the transmission of information through the airwaves. On the one end, a

program is converted to analogue or digital information – light is captured by lenses (in the

case of television), and auditory vibrations through microphones. In both cases a material

sensitive to the light spectrum, or auditory vibrations serves as an intermediary, turning the

physical phenomena into electrical impulses. These are either recorded, or broadcast

immediately. In broadcast, live or from a recording, the information is transformed again,

from electrical impulses to electromagnetic waves. By creating an oscillating current through

an antenna the broadcaster can effect an electromagnetic wave that can travel out over the

air to people's homes.

This is where the science runs into policy. The EM (electromagnetic) waves that can be

used to travel the right distances and maintain the power to retain the information fall within a

3
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

specific band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Wavelengths in the range of a meter or

meters are able to fit these requirements, so any broadcaster will send transmissions using

waves of one of these wavelengths within this range. An audience member can tune their

receivers to read a certain wavelength, so that they can pick up a broadcast. Given a limited

range from A to B, and a number of people that wish to broadcast on the most effective

wavelengths within that range, we might find more broadcasters than wavelengths. Whether

by bad luck or intentionally confrontational actions, two or more broadcasters attempt to use

the same wavelength, they will interfere with each other's signals. The receiver of any given

audience member will get conflicting information, trying to read and display two or more

images and audio signals. The electromagnetic waves do not only attempt to reach the same

receivers but actually interfere with each other when they have the same wavelengths. The

signals can interact to the point of canceling out each other. Policy has to limit the number of

broadcasters, given the limited spectrum. It does so by licensing broadcasters. It has to assign

wavelengths to each licensed broadcaster, so that they will not interfere with each other's

signals.

The power of the broadcasting mediums, radio and television both, to warn, educate,

motivate, etc. the public has made it a matter of our common interest. The government

considers access to information, in issues such as politics and safety, important. We also have

the public interest in mind considering that any broadcast will be using the airwaves. The very

space around us, the electromagnetic spectrum, is a natural resource. It seems peculiar for

4
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

anyone to lay claim to it, specially since it crosses lines of cities, states, private and public

property. Our interests in the power of broadcasting and the use of a natural resource in our

country both led to the formation of a regulatory agency by the government. Starting with

radio, the government began to place restrictions and demands on broadcasters. The Radio

Act of 1912, for example, restricted the wavelengths and times available to amateur

broadcasters. Their effort was an attempt to clear the main commercial airwaves and the

military channels. This set a precedent for more federal controls and regulations. In the Radio

Act of 1927 the government increased control over the medium as it grew around the

country. In this act, congress gave the newly formed Federal Radio Commission the power to

license and assign wavelengths to broadcasters.4 The Commission, made up of five members,

separated the country into five zones and set up a quota of licenses for each zone. With

regards to content, while there was no specifications on censorship by subject matter, the act

acknowledged limits as far as obscenity and language.

Experimenting with television broadcasts began only a couple years before 1930, and

the trials were sanctioned by the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). A few years later congress

passed the Communications Act of 1934. In this act they transferred the jurisdiction of the

FRC and the telecommunications regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission to the

new Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Through the 1930s small broadcasters

and the large chain broadcasters – the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and the

Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) – experimented with television broadcasting. At the

5
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

beginning of the following decade the FCC ordered that NBC separate some of its network,

arguing in favor of the public and competition, leading to the formation of the American

Broadcasting Company (ABC) from the divorced network.5

It is not surprising that these chain broadcasters would set-up television in a way not

unlike their radio networks. A single broadcasting location will be able to deliver a signal to a

radius, around a town, city, etc. Such a station, on its own, is restricted by the physical

properties of their transmitter to the area it may broadcast to. Chain broadcasting links

multiple stations by relaying a signal between them. A program is transmitted from one

station to another, and reaches each of the single station's audience. NBC and CBS already

have had such networks since, webs of affiliate stations that rebroadcast the syndicated

programs. The local audience of the chain broadcasters can then enjoy national news, and

programs with high production values funded by their much larger national viewership's ad

revenue. The chain broadcasters can also allow time for each local affiliate to broadcast

programs aimed solely at their local audience.6 This kind of dichotomy should be very

familiar to anyone who may have seen the evening news on these networks.

The beginning of cable television is in this environment, one where the old established

radio broadcasters, national chain broadcasters, have become the broadcasters of television.

A network of affiliates broadcasts signals that cross the country, reaching cities and towns with

national news and entertainment programs. The very nature of the science of broadcasting

discussed above created the niche where cable could be born. Many areas around the

6
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

country were limited by their population or geographic character. Some small populations

might simply not have enough people to justify the kind of ad revenue that would sustain a

full station affiliate. Others, in virtue of their location next to mountain ranges or other

obstacles, were unable to properly receive signals. The electromagnetic waves sent from a

transmitter are subject to interference with large obstacles like the mountain ranges or even

buildings in a city. This untapped market was the fertile ground for cable television.

These restrictions on broadcasting television, due to the nature of electromagnetic

signals, were coupled with the FCC's licensing freeze of 1948. A boom in new stations over

the 40s created such a number of broadcasters that there was interference. This being one of

the very goals of the FCC, it behooved them to stop all licensing. The need of those

broadcasting didn't reach, or just didn't reach well, would not be satisfied until the advent of

Community Access Television (CATV). There are several examples of pioneers in the

development of the first CATV systems. Of several that were based in Pennsylvania, two stand

out with claims to being the first commercial CATV systems – one set up by John Walson in

Mahoney City, the other by Robert Tarlton in Landsford.7 Both these places are small towns

northwest of Philadelphia, and not very far from each other. It would not be surprising if it

turned out that they simply shared their ideas through gossip or advertisement. Their need is

much the same, since they are too far from Philadelphia to enjoy its big city broadcasts.

Both Tarlton and Walson were television retailers, so it seems quite logical that they

would wonder how they might increase their demand. By creating a way for their markets to

7
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

enjoy the broadcasts of the Philadelphia stations, they were able to sell more television sets.

By paying an installation fee and a monthly subscription fee, their costumers were able to

enjoy these stations previously unavailable to them. The revenue then becomes a

combination of the TV sets, sold with the prospect of full access to the national networks, and

installations and subscription fees. Turning a retailer into a service provider, the business

model was incredibly attractive, and the boom in CATV covered the country.8

It is not immediately obvious that the FCC, or anyone else for that matter, should want

to interfere with the CATV services. If they rebroadcast a station, it would seem that they are

doing them a favor, doing the same work they have transmitters for. Their competition would

seem to be only other CATV services. The second kind of wave interference came along with

prosperity in the 70s. As before, broadcasters were trying to compete for their mass

audiences, but with CATV they were not limited by the wavelengths of the EM spectrum or the

licenses of the FCC. They could pop-up anywhere around the country, given retailers willing

to invest to increase their demand and a receptive audience craving as much of the new

medium as possible. The large receivers of the CATV systems could receive signals from large

metropolitan areas as well as smaller affiliates. Having these different signals available,

several locations were able to receive their local affiliates along with affiliates from other

locales. This led to interference, this time not of physical EM waves, but of programming.

The competition between programs, similar programs on different station affiliates of

different chain broadcasters, has been the basic rule of programming. This is a peculiar

8
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

puzzle that can only be explained by the bare economic interests of the big three (through the

70s – ABC, CBS and NBC). There is no reason people should want to watch game shows at

7 pm, dramas at 8 pm, news at 10 pm, etc. Yet the networks schedule their talk shows

opposite talk shows, local news opposite each other, and so on. The business logic behind

this pattern is the old fashioned thinking of broadcast television. If on any given time slot

there is a successful program, and popularity for a show spawns more popularity, the other

two networks would attempt to compete for that same success. The will of the people was

evident in the ratings, executives might think. So if at 11 pm there is a successful variety show

taking the top ratings, executives interpret this to mean that “the American public” wished to

watch such a variety program before bed. It is apparent to viewers that over time, each of the

big three chains create programs of the kind the public want to see for each time slot. Every

affiliate will play the local news at 10 pm, and follow these with a variety talk show at 11 pm.

Once these slots are labeled this way it becomes hard to change them, since if any executive

decided to program against these labels they would have to be responsible for the ratings. It

might be worth it in the long run for networks to take risks with their programming, finding

new things people want to see at different time slots. It is not worth it for any individual

programming executive to risk their position on the success of a show. These kind of

restrictions affect many of the creative decisions in programming, leading to stagnation in

broadcasting television and even on cable.

The programs that CATV brought that would interfere with each other were not these.

9
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

Having the same kind of situational comedies on different networks competing on the same

time slot, for example, has been the norm for the networks since the 50s. However, if CATV

could provide different NBC affiliates to viewers, they would be duplicating the programs

exactly, not just in kind. The same program on different channels might not seem like a

problem for a viewer. If it's the same content from the same chain broadcaster, what

difference does it make which affiliate we tune-in to? The difference is in the local

advertisements. While the chain broadcaster may sell ad time across the nation, individual

affiliates also have some ad time at their disposal to sell. If the different locations sell to

different advertisers, when CATV systems duplicate programming from another locale some

viewers will miss the advertisements of their local affiliates. This harm, or the fear of this harm,

was the driving force behind the early involvement of the FCC with CATV systems. In the court

case of Frontier Broadcasting Co. v. Collier of 1956, broadcasters looked to have the FCC

control the CATV systems across the nation like they would common carriers. 9 A common

carrier is distinguished by certain qualities, among them the availability of their service to a

wide public, and their licensing and regulation by some agency. While their move was

defeated in their court case, the FCC won the appeal. While it appears that at the time no

broadcasters had suffered from competition with CATV systems, the possibility seemed

enough grounds for the FCC to gain control.

While there is some regulation regarding duplication, as far as ownership and content,

the FCC has not restricted cable channels like it has the broadcast networks. The technology

10
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

is on a basic level the same since its inception, and the reasoning behind this regulatory

difference remains just as valid. The editors of Cable Visions – Television Beyond

Broadcasting explain it the following way: “This absence [of regulation] is justified by the fact

that broadcasters transmit their signals free-to-air over publicly owned spectra, to be captured

by anyone with a receiver and an antenna. In contrast, cable and satellite transmissions are

received only by those audience members who choose to bring this kind of television into

their homes by making monthly payments and who typically acquire or lease special

equipment...” This is the freedom that filled the speculation about the potential of cable. As

cable providers began to create new programming, as opposed to relaying chain

broadcaster's signals, this potential was idealized.

The ideals the public and the government had about cable center around the idea of

“narrowcasting.” The term plays on the word 'broadcast' emphasizing the terms broad and

narrow. A station trying to reach a city attempts to appeal to as much of the city as possible.

Guided by their economic needs, it is in any affiliate's interest to appeal to the widest range of

their population. A chain broadcaster, like any of the national networks, has an even broader

audience. They attempt to search for common interests, issues of wide appeal, and generally

friendly programs. To look for these ideas they use focus groups and market research, but are

most influenced by past and current success, which leads to some stagnation of their

creativity. The criticism of this situation is that in pursuing a broad audience, programs often

appeal to the lowest common denominator. Meaningful content is sacrificed for

11
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

oversimplified stories, pandering imagery, or fear based rhetoric. These criticisms are true of

most programs on the networks. Even the best shows often have to bow to the tastes of large

groups. In order to not alienate any group, controversial or even just displeasing content is

cut, leaving milquetoast programs to broadcast.

With cable, however, there is no limit on a spectra. The number of channels we may

have is unlimited. Rather than appeal to a broad audience, new channels could focus on a

narrow audience with certain interests. For example, a station might dedicate itself to jazz

lovers of Philadelphia, rather than people of Philadelphia. Every interest could be addressed,

without worrying about having to appeal to everyone on three channels. The niche interests of

minorities would be represented. Different ethnic groups, cultures, political interests, etc.

would finally be able to be seen and heard on television. It has been several decades since

new channels began to fill the rosters, and today we can see many examples of channels that

claim to represent minority groups. Black Entertainment Television (BET) was established in

1980, and it would presumably have programs that would interest the large black minority

around the country. Logo, a more recent channel, is aimed at a gay audience, showing

programs that might address their political interests or particular social situations.

These are good examples of the possibilities that have been realized on cable. There

are different political points of view on all kinds of channels too. But most channels still run

into the pitfalls of the market pressures. To appeal to wider audiences, many programs avoid

controversy. On the other hand, news channels might exploit controversy by focusing on

12
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

polarized extremes, showing their differences superficially rather than exploring the actual

complexity of an issue. The need to appeal to as much of a target audience as possible has

the same pattern across the board – dumbing down, sensationalizing and superficiality. In

The Rise of Cable Programming in the United States Megan Mullen noted that early policy

statements regarding cable expressed that it might “remedy all the perceived ills of broadcast

television, including lowest-common-denominator programming, inability to serve the needs

of local audiences, and failure to recognize the needs of cultural minorities.” An overview of

our networks and on-demand options might dismay her. Furthermore, given the overly

litigious and politically heated condition of the country, programs and networks often have to

worry about things that might offend groups outside their target audiences. Since the

government regulation of cable channels has been minor, relative to broadcasts, a common

tactic for political groups is to threaten sponsors with boycotts. Self-censorship is very

common on basic cable channels, so as to avoid these kinds of conflicts. As discussed above,

the corporate structure makes individuals in charge of programming, for the most part, risk

averse. This and the intolerant matters of taste of many of us have stifled the possibilities of

cable.

As we look to the future, as the Internet merges with the entertainment we know as

television, the convenience of on demand content might take us further towards the dreams

of cable. As we choose the programs we want to see, when we want to see them, we can

forgo tunning in to a channel. The thresholds to publishing media may be less, allowing for

13
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

better competition. Television with high production expenses will still be under the control of

the modern networks, but they may be more targeted and reach more authentic niches.

However, if we wish to truly enjoy the potential for diversity and better content, we will have to

think about ways to combat the intolerance of taste, petty political attacks on entertainers, etc.

The networks might have to consider restructuring their risk rewards to find new content, and

try to find a way to thrive in serving many small audiences, rather than finding the largest

audiences they can within a label. The shift in technology alone will not bring about its own

ideal uses.

14
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

Notes

1. Megan Mullen, “”Blue Sky”: 1968-74,” in Television in the Multichannel Age – A Brief

History of Cable Television (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 88-91.

2. Viacom Inc., “Our Brands – Strengthening the Bond with Our Audiences in Every

Way,” Viacom Inc. website, http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/Pages/default.aspx.

The Walt Disney Company and Affiliated Companies, “Company Overview,” Disney,

http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html.

Time Warner: Turner Broadcasting, “Turner Broadcasting System,” Time Warner

2010,

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/detail/turner_broadcasting/index.html.

News Corporation, “Television,” 2010 News Corporation,

http://www.newscorp.com/operations/television.html.

3. Bob Mullan, Consuming Television (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1997),

34.

4. Sarah Banet-Weiser et al., ed., Introduction to Cable Visions – Television Beyond

Broadcasting (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 4.

5. Federal Communications Commission, “Golden Age, 1930's through 1950's,” Reboot

FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/tv/1930-1959.html.

6. Megan Mullen, “Cable Pre-history and the Pioneers,” in Television in the Multichannel

Age – A Brief History of Cable Television (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008),

15
 Jose P. Chaparro
STS.001

29-32.

7. Megan Mullen, “The Moms n' Pops of CATV” in Cable Visions – Television Beyond

Broadcasting, ed. Sarah Banet-Weiser et al. (New York: New York University Press,

2007), 25-31.

8. John McMurria, “A Taste of Class – Pay-TV and the Commodification of Television in

Postwar America,” in Cable Visions – Television Beyond Broadcasting, ed. Sarah

Banet-Weiser et al. (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 44-47.

9. Megan Mullen, “Cable Pre-history and the Pioneers,” 50-51.

16