Cable TV License Endorsed-This Day In Norwood History-June 11, 1981

Selectmen Weigh Lucrative 15-Year Cable Franchise as Advisory Panel Recommends Top Two Firms Out of Seven Applicants

The Board of Selectmen held a final, critical consultation last night with their cable television advisory committee as they prepare to decide whether to issue a town-wide CATV license. Under guidelines managed by the state Community Antenna Television Commission, selectmen must officially award the franchise by June 30 unless a formal extension is granted. If approved, a high-capacity 52-channel cable system could be operational in town within a single year.

Out of seven remaining applicants, two have been endorsed as outstanding by the advisory panel and are being recommended for licensing consideration: the Adams-Russell Co. of Waltham and Boston-based Continental Cablevision of Massachusetts. The impending choice carries significant weight, with a highly lucrative 15-year franchise at stake.

Faced with a narrow two-week window to finalize the decision, selectmen expressed lingering concerns. Selectman Walter J. Dempsey stated he would prefer inviting all seven original applicants back for “one more round,” but his proposal failed to gather support. Dempsey’s subsequent motion to meet exclusively with the two top-rated firms was rejected in a tight 3-2 vote, with only Selectman Thomas A. Riolo siding with him.

The board did reach a unanimous agreement regarding the structure of a future cable communications committee. This body, tasked with advising selectmen on developing local programming and monitoring rates, complaints, and cable television fare, will consist of seven members serving staggered three-year terms.

Selectmen Chairman John F. Kinnaly strongly opposed opening any further direct dialogue with the cable firms. To call the applicants back after exhaustive studies and public hearings, Kinnaly argued, would amount to “nothing more than a rehash.” Cable advisory committee Chairman Edward F. McKenna supported this stance, warning selectmen that the competing companies could not be permitted to substantially alter their proposals at this late stage, and cautioned against comparing the applicants against one another now.

The debate then turned to the legal complexities of granting a single, exclusive franchise. Town Counsel Justin C. Barton noted that state law explicitly prohibits a municipality from granting an “exclusive” license. McKenna’s committee had previously advised the board of their legal “right to award or deny a non-exclusive license to any or all applicants.” Taken to its absolute extreme, McKenna noted, the town possesses the legal authority to award licenses to all seven applicants simultaneously.

When Chairman Kinnaly asked if exclusive licenses previously granted to Adams-Russell Co. in Peabody and Lexington were illegal, Barton declined to make that assertion, noting simply that the law specifies a town cannot explicitly limit licensing to a single applicant out of a competitive field. Kinnaly observed that license losers always seem to sue, to which Barton responded that avoiding such litigation was precisely the advice he was attempting to provide. Advisory panel member Gordon Smith offered a more optimistic view, noting that not all municipal cable awards across the state have resulted in courtroom battles.

“It’s a lucrative business,” McKenna added, observing that historically, no legal challenger had ever successfully won a lawsuit against a town over an award.

The advisory committee’s written report detailed the specific structural strengths of the top two choices alongside the relative weaknesses of the other six contenders. Since that report was filed, one applicant, UA-Columbia Cablevision of Massachusetts, formally dropped out of the running when its representative, Norwood attorney Louis H. Beigbeder, requested to withdraw the application last week.

According to McKenna, the applicants were thoroughly evaluated across 32 distinct categories, with the top two firms receiving all nine votes from the committee. The proposals were meticulously analyzed on system design, technical equipment, local programming, production facilities, consumer rates, and miscellaneous items. McKenna noted that the committee intentionally avoided using a numerical score sheet, opting instead to vote directly on the structural integrity of the proposals. He admitted it was exceedingly difficult to gather informative performance evaluations from other towns, with most references offering nothing more than vague “doing a great job” assertions. To safeguard public interests, McKenna assured the selectmen that the final contract would include performance bonds and penalty clauses.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger