Running Head: Cable access
Cable access television and community involvement: The tale of
a small town’s use of access television
by
Mary Jackson Pitts, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 2160
State University, AR 72467
Phone: 870-972-3070
E-mail:
&
Mike Doyle
P.O. Box 2160
State University, AR 72467
Phone: 870-972-3070
E-mail:mdoyle@kiowa.astate.edu
A paper presented at the "Public Broadcasting and the
Public Interest," conference at the University of Maine, June 15-17, 2000
The authors would like to thank the members of the
Communication Research class (Spring 1999) at Arkansas State
University.
Cable access television and community involvement: The tale of
a small
town’s use of access television
Awareness and use of cable access opportunities have garnered limited
attention since the concept of access was developed. Scholars have shown some
interest in examining the audience of access channels (Traudt, Bellamy, &
Trainor, 1998; Roberts, 1996; Porter & Banks, 1988). Most often the audience
is a small one, but the viewer is often active in the community and uses access
channels to follow community activities. Using the economic model of commercial
television, access programming would not exist. The audience would be too small
to support it. However, the development of access channels was intended to give
voice to the voiceless, and to provide opportunities for a diversity of ideas to
be expressed.
Most communities do not promote access programming, nor do cable systems
actively pursue opportunities to expand access programming. Therefore, it is
likely that many community residents are not familiar with the possibilities
access channels provide for expression. The purpose of this study was to measure
community awareness and familiarity with access programming. A practical
application of the study was to help city officials scientifically determine
community awareness of access programming, and to provide measurements of
satisfaction with the overall cable system. Literature Review
The general history of public access cable in the U.S. has been thoroughly
documented. (Baldwin & McVoy, 1988; Engleman, 1990). During the franchising
boom years of the 1980s, numerous descriptions of access channel success stories
appeared in literature from the academic community and from such non-profit
advocates as the Cable Television Information Center. (Jesuale et al, 1982;
Roman, 1983). After the Midwest Video case (1978), when cable access
enthusiasts realized that the future of community channels was unsure, many
booklets, brochures and primers on access channel production techniques were
published in an effort to keep access alive and to stimulate interest. Articles
that examined the impact of the courts on the development of community access
have contributed to an understanding of why public, educational and government
(PEG) channels have such a feeble history in many communities. As Roberts (1996)
noted, "Most people would not think of access as the cornerstone of public
television. The popular film Wayne’s World helped solidify the widely
held impression of what access has to offer."
Before personal computers, modems, and the Internet made on-line discussion
groups and personal Web pages possible, media scholars believed that community
cable access channels held some of the few opportunities for narrow interests
and minority viewpoints to gain expression. Aufderhide (1994) and others
recommended that a national cable policy force cable system operators to set
aside channel space on the lower end of their basic tiers for these
opportunities for democratic expression. But the only federal requirements for
specified numbers of access channels were in regard to leased (commercial)
access , rather than PEG channels. The 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act
simply codified the right of franchising authorities to require that access
channels be a part of any franchise proposal (1984). The 1992 Cable Television
and Consumer Protection Act gave the FCC authority to declare rules that allowed
cable operators to prohibit certain controversial programs and made the operator
liable for the content. Some of the more notorious uses of cable access have
included Ku Klux Klan hate speech, Black Israelite prophetic threats, and frank
discussions of sexual behavior. These incidents, along with the Wayne’s
World movie image of two teenage boys in battered blue jeans hosting a show
in a basement perhaps have negatively affected cable access programming’s
general image and potential for growth.
Other factors that threaten the growth of cable access channels include the
increasing consolidated ownership of cable systems. Access channels have always
been given limited resources, and as the large multi-system operators (MSOs)
cluster their holdings and leverage their debt, they’re looking at ways to
increase cash flow and minimize cost. It is enlightening to look at some of the
promises made by competing applicants for municipal franchises during cable’s
explosive growth years of a generation ago. As an example, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
had requested proposals for cable service in 1981. The city entertained bids
from several large MSOs, but politics won the day and Warner-Amex won the
franchise even though Viacom’s plan had been given superior ratings for its
system plan.
Once the franchise had been awarded, Warner-Amex requested, and was granted,
the right to make huge changes in the plan. The company had promised 108
channels on an interactive (two-way) system and 13 access channels. In July
1984, the council voted to let Warner Amex have its way, and the city got 35
channels, one-way (non-interactive), and five access channels (Borsuk, 1986).
Since those years of promise, the number of access channels has undoubtedly
decreased as operators wanted more spectrum available for the profusion of
satellite-delivered commercial and premium channels. In the mid-1990s, a cable
management class at Arkansas State University selected a random sample of 400
cable system entries from the Television and Cable Factbook and noted the number
and types of access channels offered by those systems. The class found that in
the northeastern U.S., a cable system offered, on the average, two to three
access channels and two to three local origination (LO) channels. Other areas of
the country varied widely, but most offered no more than one local origination
channel and most offered no access channels. Typically, a system offered one
composite channel for both local origination and access, with access presumably
including some combination of public, education and government information.
Because the local origination channels can be programmed by the cable
operator and used to sell programs and sponsorships, the citizens’ groups,
schools and government entities that produce programming for access channels
often need to fortify their positions on the cable. Traudt, Bellamy and Trainor
(1998) pointed to the need for more information about access cable audiences as
cable franchises come up for renewal and operators reexamine their programming
options and obligations.
Managers of cable systems have been divided in their opinions on the value of
community access programming. Tesch (1984) surveyed 200 cable managers with a
demographic and attitudinal questionnaire and found that the average cable
system in 1983 had ten thousand to fourteen thousand subscribers and a channel
capacity of 25 to 30 channels. The system had been in existence for five to ten
years. There was one channel devoted to public access and the system provided
facilities but no financial support for the production of programming. There was
no third party providing additional assistance. More of the cable systems
offering public access channels had a supportive franchise ordinance than those
operating without such support. ( A supportive franchise was defined as an
ordinance designed to establish and encourage a public access channel.) However,
cable system mangers disagreed that a supportive franchise was needed. Most
cable managers were neutral on the question of whether public access had a large
audience. A significant number of managers considered public access to be an
important part of their cable systems, but they were evenly divided on whether
it was their duty to the community to have public access.
A relatively small number of studies report data on cable access channel
audiences. Johnson, Agostino and Ksobiech (1974), in telephone interviews with
150 cable subscribers, found that almost 80% were familiar with their local
public access station and 45% of these subscribers reported having watched it.
Porter and Banks (1988) completed telephone surveys of 226 households in the
Milwaukee market and found that 51% were aware of public access. Atkin and
LaRose (1991) surveyed viewership and satisfaction across a national sample of
100 cable systems in the country and obtained over 1,300 usable responses. They
found 16% of respondents indicated watching a cable channel within the past
week.
Aufderheide (1992), citing studies that showed that 47% of cable viewers
watch community channels, a quarter of them at least three times in two weeks,
wrote that the most useful measure is not numbers of viewers or positive poll
results but the ability to make a difference in community life: "Access
does not need to win popularity contests to play a useful role in the
community."
In their study of Las Vegas cable viewers, Traudt, Bellamy and Trainor (1998)
attempted a total of over 2,500 telephone calls in 1997 until a quota of 500
interviews was achieved. The three-page survey included five sections including
both demographic and attitudinal questions. Attitudes toward the cable provider
and access channel programming were measured. The results affirmed findings of
earlier studies: younger respondents were less inclined to watch access
channels; typical access viewers indicated that they were less likely to move
out of the viewing area; and gender made no significant difference in the
likelihood of watching access channels. New variables introduced in the Las
Vegas study were involvement in community events, involvement in politics and
surveillance of community news and events. The researchers found that access
viewers were more likely to vote in local elections, to report involvement in
local political campaigns and to keep up with current events.
Profile of access programming in Jonesboro, Arkansas
This study was envisioned to add to the scant but growing number of studies
on local cable access channels. Jonesboro, Arkansas, population 50,000, is the
central city of business, medicine and higher education in northeastern
Arkansas. Arkansas State University's Department of Radio-TV has produced
programming that was aired on Jonesboro's cable system since the early 1970s.
The earliest usage was a live television newscast, first weekly, then
semi-weekly by the advanced television practices class. Throughout the decade of
the 70s, some recorded specials featuring university musical concerts were aired
in addition to news, sports and weather broadcasts.
In the early 1980s, these broadcasts, which were typically aired at night,
moved to an early fringe daypart. In 1985, when United Artists Cablevision,
(then the franchisee) renewed its agreement with the city the ordinance provided
for a channel on the basic service tier solely for the use of Arkansas State
University (Ordinance No. 1919). Language in the franchise said that ASU could
choose to relinquish use of the channel to the cable operator at times when the
channel was not being used for programming by the radio-television department.
Throughout the fifteen year history of the franchise, the University’s radio-tv
department continued to provide educational access programming four afternoons a
week during the majority of the fall and spring semesters and on certain other
special occasions such as the live broadcast of the county spelling bee. During
the other times, when access programming wasn’t provided, the cable operator
began to run local origination programs for pay, such as syndicated and local
religious telecasts, local high school and college sports events, and regional
network broadcasts of St. Louis Cardinal baseball. Currently, the University has
reclaimed full use of its access channel. Twenty-four hour a day programming was
begun January, 2000.
Research Goals
After a review of the literature, these goals were developed to guide the
researchers:
1) Determine respondents’ awareness and viewership of local cable access
programming.
2) Determine respondents’ satisfaction with local access programming.
3) Determine respondents’ information seeking variables in viewership of
cable access
4) Determine respondents’ degree of community involvement.
5) Determine differences between access viewers and nonviewers as they
relate to goals 2-4
Methodology
A telephone survey was conducted in March and April of 1999 in an attempt to
determine how familiar Jonesboro, AR residents were with cable access
programming. A random digit dialing computer program was employed to generate
phone numbers for the Jonesboro area. All prefixes in the cable area were
included. More than 5,000 numbers were generated. Three attempts were made to
connect with each number. Completed calls were made to 983 residents. Of those,
52% (511) agreed to answer the survey. The researchers’ goal was to reach at
least 500 people. Nine residents agreed to participate but dropped out before
the survey was completed. A group of students in a communications research class
was trained to administer the questionnaire. Training sessions were held during
three class periods. Students received no monetary compensation for
administering the survey, however they did earn bonus points in the class for
their participation as a surveyor.
Researchers replicated a survey instrument used by Traudt, Bellamy, &
Trainor (1998) in their study of Las Vegas viewers. Of course, the questionnaire
was retooled where needed to address Jonesboro, Arkansas residents’ use of
cable access. Only residents over 18 years of age were administered the
questionnaire. The questionnaire addressed six areas of interest.
Section one of the questionnaire was used to determine what respondents were
actual cable users and their level of satisfaction with their television
provider. Section two was used to determine respondents’ information seeking
variables for watching television. Section three gathered information, using
unaided recall questions, to learn about respondents’ awareness and viewership
of access television, where section four, used aided recall questions to
determine respondents’ viewership of specific cable access programs. In
addition, section four was used to gather information about respondents’
opinions about the usefulness of access programming, whether similar types of
programming should be continued; and specifically, what kinds of local
programming, in addition to what was already offered, should be offered by the
cable company. Section five measured the respondents’ levels of community
involvement, while section six gathered demographic information about the
respondents.
Limitations
Sampling was conducted by randomly generating phone numbers. Prefixes were
obtained from the local phone company. However, they did not identify prefixes
which were assigned to fax machines and cellular phones. Therefore, many of the
numbers generated were for fax machines and cellular phones which increased the
level of nonsampling bias. Student workers were used to complete the survey
administration. Some level of error occurred in this process.
Results
The purpose of this study was to assess the audience for cable access
television in a small Mid-South town. A profile of the survey respondents and
their levels of use and satisfaction with the cable provider is summarized first
in this section of the paper. Data from the administered survey is addressed by
reporting respondents’ awareness and viewership of local cable access
programming; their satisfaction with local access programming; their information
seeking variables in viewership of cable access; and, their degree of
involvement in the community. Differences between access viewers and non-access
viewers will be reported in the four areas just identified.
Profile of Survey Respondents
Survey respondents were equally distributed among age groups.
Fifty-seven-point-nine percent of respondents were 18-34, while 42.1% were older
than 35. Females accounted for (64.4%) of all respondents. Only ten percent of
respondents had not completed high school. Slightly less than a third (30%) had
completed college. Most respondents indicated they owned their home (67.9%), and
the majority of respondents (80.8%) indicated they would not be moving from the
area any time soon. The majority of respondents(289 for 57%) owned 2.5 tv sets.
Sixty percent of respondents had lived in the cable coverage area more than 10
years. Access viewers tended to be 35 years of age or older (X2=22.59, df=1,p.=.01).
Access viewers reported they were not likely to move from the cable coverage
area (X2=106.7,df=1,p=.01). Cable Usage and Satisfaction
with Provider
Data from the survey shows the majority of respondents indicated that they do
subscribe to a cable television service 82.8%(423). Of these, 74.2% (379)
received cable from the primary service provider, Cox Communications. Those not
receiving their TV programming from Cox Communications commonly used satellite
dishes(35) and roof top antennas(31). Twenty-two (4.3%) respondents indicated
they had previously used Cox Cable, but dropped it. About two percent of those
said they dropped Cox cable because they had moved. The remaining respondents
indicated poor reception, cost, and programming as reasons they had dropped. The
majority of respondents( 48.7%) rated their tv provider poorly, only 3.5% rated
their provider as excellent. In addition, 23.1% rated their provider as fair,
and 6.1% rated their provider as good. (See Appendix)
Awareness and Viewership of Cable Access
Respondents were aware of and did view access programming, although a
majority of access viewers rated their tv provider poorly (X2=9.1,df=2, p=.01).
Respondents were asked if they ever remembered watching access programming on
the local cable provider system. Although local access programming was limited
during the administering of the survey, 48.7% of those responding reported that
they had watched some access programming. Of those, 33.3% could name, without
any aid, at least one program that they had watched on the access channel.
Respondents (8.4%) named Arkansas State University programming ( ASU news, 6.5%;
and ASU entertainment, 3.7%) as programming they could recall viewing on the
local access channel. In addition, respondents (14.1%) could recall watching
sports programming, other than ASU sports (3.9%). City council meetings were
recalled by 3.9% of respondents. Religious programs were watched by 5.3% of
respondents. Ad pages on the access channel were recalled by 4.4% of
respondents.
Aided recall techniques were included in the survey to determine respondents’
viewing habits toward the most common types of access programming on the Cox
cable system. Respondents ( 14.5%) indicated they watched the Jonesboro city
council’s meetings some of the time. Respondents(12.9%) indicated they
sometimes watched ASU-TV’s Jonesboro PM program. Beyond Jonesboro PM, 19.2% of
respondents indicated they watched entertainment programs on ASU-TV. Respondents
(26.4%) indicated they sometimes watched various religious programs. Respondents
(27.2%) indicated they sometimes watched cardinal baseball. Respondents (28.3%)
reported they sometimes watched the ad pages. The Craighead Spelling Bee was
sometimes watched by 10.5% of respondents. And, 32.3% said they sometimes
watched taped delayed sporting events.
Satisfaction with Local Access Programming
A significant number of access viewers (61.8%) indicated they thought local
programming on the access channel was useful (X2=13.53,df=5, p=.02).
Twenty-one-point-three percent of respondents indicated they would like to see
more local programming on the access channel.
When respondents were asked what types of local programming options they
would like to see the cable system offer, 20.2 percent of respondents made
suggestions . Four-point-three percent indicated they would like to see more
local programming. Two-point-nine percent indicated they would like to see more
high school and ASU sports. Two-point-seven percent indication they would like
more programming about ASU, its students and campus. Two point five percent
indicated they would like to see more educational programming.
Degree of Respondents’ Use of Information Seeking Tools
Survey results showed no difference between access viewers and non access
viewers in their gathering of information about television programming.
Respondents rarely or never used print guides to determine what was on
television. A significant number of respondents (428 for 84%) just turned the tv
on (X2=7.60,df=3, p=.05). More respondents did indicate that they used the cable
system’s viewer guide(299 for 59.4%), although the number did not approach
significance.
Degree of Respondents’ Community Involvement
Respondents tended to be somewhat involved in the community, yet, there were
few differences between access viewers and nonviewers.. A majority (384 for
75.1%) sometimes or always voted in local elections (X2= 129,df=1,p=.01). Access
viewers (198) tended to be more likely to vote in local elections, although the
number was not of statistical significance. A majority (353 for 69.1%) reported
they rarely or never got involved in local politics (X2=74.41,df=1,p=.01). A
majority of respondents (484 for 94.7%) indicated they sometimes or always paid
attention to local television news. While a majority (451 for 88.4%) reported
they sometimes or always read articles in the newspaper dealing with community
issues. About half of respondents indicated they sometimes or always volunteered
for activities in the community. And although not significant, access viewers
tended to be more likely to volunteer in the community. Access viewers were more
likely to keep up with current events than nonviewers viewers
(X2=15.44,df=3,p.=01). Seventy-five percent of access viewers indicated they
sometimes or always kept up with current events in the community.
Discussions and Conclusions
The tale of this small towns’s use of cable access programming provides
a snapshot of how television users view cable access channels and the service
providers who allow them to exist. Cable access channels exist because of
agreements made between cable providers and municipalities. As more cities and
communities move toward franchise renewal negotiations, it becomes increasingly
important for government leaders and cable providers to be aware of the public’s
perceptions and uses of cable access programming. Information gathered from a
study like this can help community leaders as they negotiate franchise
agreements.
The profile of the local access viewer in this study was someone who was 35
years or older, had lived in the area for more than 10 years, and said they
would not be moving from the cable area. In other words, the access user was a
stable citizen of the community which was unlike the cable system owner. As
reported earlier, the cable system had changed hands several times in the last
few years. In addition, since the survey was conducted, the system has come
under new ownership. The fluid nature of cable system acquisitions provides a
very real reason for municipalities to carefully negotiate franchise agreements.
Survey respondents reported that they were familiar with access programming.
Almost 50% of those surveyed said that they remembered watching some form of
access programming. As one would expect, the local university programming was
recalled by some of the respondents. Since the university has the only access
channel on the cable system assigned to them, the majority of access programming
which airs is generated by the university. But as the reader may recall the
cable system would use the access channel when not in use by the university. One
way the cable system would use the channel was to program city council meetings.
Some four percent of respondents indicated that they watched the city council
meetings. The number, is no doubt small, because the city council meets only
twice a month. So in total, just more than 12 percent of respondents were able
to recall (unaided) the two legitimate forms of access programming on the access
channel (educational and government). However, when aided recall techniques were
used, respondents recalled watching more cable access programs than previously
reported using unaided recall methods. Results showed more than 14 % watching
council meetings some of the time and almost 20 % watching some form of
programming from the university.
People who were access viewers liked what they were watching when viewing
access programming. A majority reported that the access programming was useful.
And while not approaching significance, more than 20% wanted to see more local
access programming. While the local cable system seemed to have reservations
about the university moving to 24 hour programming, they did indicate that the
more local programming the channel could air, the happier the cable system would
be. Twenty percent of access viewers could think of other types of access
programming they would like to see. Most said they would like to see more of
what was already being offered by the university channel.
Respondents, whether access or non access viewers, were not active seekers of
information about any type of programming on the cable system. Although there
was some evidence which suggested the cable system’s guide was a useful tool
for gathering information about programming. Unfortunately, none of the
information seeking tools, contained specific information about the local access
channel. This lack of information does suggest that the local university should
actively seek to get information about its new programming to the cable provider
for inclusion in its cable guide. Effective use of the university’s Internet
site could also help promote the new access programming offered by the
university.
The access respondents in this study were somewhat engaged in the community.
Access viewers did show a tendency for being more likely to vote in elections
and for volunteering in the community than did non access viewers, but the
numbers were not significant. A significant number of access viewers did say
they were more likely to keep up with current events than did non viewers.
In summary, there was a tendency, as found in other studies, for the
access viewer to be an older more stable member of the community. The access
viewer did participate some in the community, but so did the non access viewer.
However, access viewers were more likely to say they kept up with current events
in the community. Like previous research, gender and education were not
predictors of access use.
The picture of this small town’s use of cable access provides a profile of
cable access which is similar to access opportunities across the country. As
cable history shows us, cable companies do not readily promote access
opportunities and often times have no access opportunities at all on the system.
This is true in Jonesboro. Access is available, but the access is very limited.
Government and public access are virtually nonexistent. Municipalities should
work to gain access as franchise agreement come up for renewal. Cities should
become active in promoting access opportunities. And, city officials should
negotiate in franchise agreements that municipalities should have the PEG system
of access. Once, the negotiations are complete, city officials should actively
campaign to promote the full use of the access channels.
Future Study
Since the study was conducted the educational channel has begun 24 hour
programming, and the cable system has changed hands, replication of the study in
Jonesboro should occur. Awareness would most likely be higher. As Porter and
Banks (1988) suggest awareness increases with availability.
In addition, future study should examine franchise agreements across the
country to determine whether access is being provided by cable systems. Research
should include surveys to determine how well city officials understand the city’s
rights during the negotiation of franchise renewals. Further, research should
examine how cities deal with changing ownership of cable systems.
References
Atkin, D., & LaRose, R. (1991). News and information on community access
channels: Market concerns amidst the marketplace of ideas. Journalism
Quarterly, 68: 354-362.
Aufderheide, P. (1992, Winter). Cable television and the public interest. Journal
of Communication, 42(1).
Aufderheide, P. (1994). Underground cable: a survey of public access
programming. Afterimage, 5-10.
Baldwin, T.F., & McVoy, D.S. (1988). Cable Communications (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Borsuk, A. (1986, March). The deal that made Milwaukee grimace. Channels,
54-55.
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549.
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No.
102-385.
Engleman, R. (1990). The origins of public access cable television.
1966-1972. Journalism Monographs, No. 123.
FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440, U.S. 689 L Ed 2nd 692, 99 Sct
1435.
Jesuale, N., Neustadt, R., & Miller, N. (1982). CTIC Cablebooks,
Volume 2: A Guide for Local Policy. Arlington, Va.: The Cable Television
Information Center.
Johnson, R., Agostino, D. & Ksobiech, K. (1974). The Columbus video
access center: A research evaluation of audience and public attitudes.
Bloomington: Indiana University Institute for Communication Research.
Nicholson, M. (1990). Cable Access: Community
Channels and Productions for Nonprofits. Washington, D.C.: Benton
Foundation.
Ordinance No.1919, city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, enacted April 1, 1985.
Porter, G., & Banks, M. (1988). Cable public access as a public forum. Journalism
Quarterly, 65, 39-45.
Roberts, J. (1996). Public access: fortifying the electronic soapbox. Federal
Communications Law Journal, 47, 124.
Roman, J. (1983). Cablemania: The cable television sourcebook.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Tesch, J. (1984).. A Survey of Public Access Cable Television Systems in the
United States. Unpublished masters thesis, Arkansas State University.
Traudt, P. J., Bellamy, R.V., & Trainor, B.J. (1998). Cable access
television and community involvement: A study of Las Vegas Viewers. A paper
presented at the Southern States Communications annual meeting in San Antonio,
TX.
Appendix
Additional information was gathered about respondents’ perceptions of the
local cable system. One survey question asked, "What kind of service
options would you like the cable company to offer, that they don’t offer
now?" Fifty-seven-point-nine percent of respondents did not answer this
question. Thirteen-point-seven percent of respondents reported they were
satisfied with the service Twenty-eight-point four percent of respondents
indicated they would like to see more services offered by the cable system. The
largest percentage of respondents (16.6%) reported they would like to see
different programs and channels offered by the cable system, including better
tier options. Three-point five percent indicated they would like to see a
different pay system, and 2.3% indicated they would like price adjustments.
Respondents were also asked what bothered them about Cox cable.
Fifty-six-point-one percent of respondents chose not to respond to this question
or said nothing bothered them about Cox cable. Respondents (15.1%) reported the
cost of services from Cox cable bothered them. Respondents (9.8%) took issue
with Cox’s channel options. Seven-point-four percent of respondents were
bothered by program content(sex, profanity, and the lack of children’s
programming). Four-point-nine percent of respondents said they were bothered by
the cable system’s ability to deliver good reception. Similarly, 3.3% of
respondents indicated they were bothered by repair services. One-point-two
percent of respondents reported Cox cable was not as good as other competitors.
Endnotes
|