FCC Has to Revise Its Definition of ‘Effective’ Competition as the Cable Industry Matures

Perhaps the 1987 deregulation of the cable television industry hasn’t been a benefit to consumers, as deregulation of many other industries has. The Times’ balanced article (“Rising Rates Bring Cable Firms Static From Public,” March 19) cited the rising costs and stagnant services. But at least where the Los Angeles metropolitan area is concerned, I believe one major factor in consumer complaints was overlooked in the story: If reception quality is at all important, most people probably have little choice but to become cable subscribers--and therefore particularly frustrated with the industry’s vagaries.

The Federal Communication Commission’s standard for deregulating cable service in a community is the existence of at least three over-the-air television signals serving the same area. But in the many places I’ve lived in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, I’ve never had effective over-the-air reception. And for the large and ever-growing population of apartment dwellers, rooftop antennae are not an option. I doubt I am alone in subscribing to basic cable service simply for quality reception. The FCC should revise its definition of “effective” competition.

DAVID CRAIN

Irvine