| Municipal officials in 950 municipalities were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward cable television regulation. Thirty-three percent of municipal officials responded to the survey. Attitudes toward four models of cable television regulation were assessed. These included: the broadcast model, the print model, the common carrier model and the public forum model.;Municipal officials attitudes do not cluster around any one model of cable television regulation. A majority of municipal officials report that the regulation of cable television is an ad hoc, reactive process. A majority are undecided on the benefits of local cable jurisdiction and report a lack of confidence in their cable knowledge base during decision-making.;A majority of municipal officials report that cable operators are engaged in a level of First Amendment activity as they select which programs to air, but agree with must carry provisions in the Cable Act of 1992. The censorship of cable programing in general is viewed as unnecessary by a majority of municipal officials.;Cable television is perceived as more than an entertainment service and over half of municipal officials report that cable television is an essential service. When asked to rank the importance of cable television regulation in comparison to their other duties, it was ranked last by a majority of municipal officials.;A majority of municipal officials reject the notion that cable television is a natural monopoly and invite cable competition. However, municipal officials are unwilling to bypass the cable franchising process as a means of cable regulation and are also unwilling to dedicate franchise fees to cover the cost of cable television regulation. Even though municipal officials are protective of franchising and franchise fees, a majority report that they will likely lose their right to regulate cable television to the federal government in the next ten years. |
