Mary Jackson Pitts, Ph.D.

 

Hit Counter

mpitts@astate.edu

Home ] Up ] Likert Statements ]

 

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