A summary of a panel discussion by seven participants in the Federal Communications Commission's cable television rulemaking. Analysis of the potential impact of cable on over-the-air broadcasting was a prominent part of the rulemaking; but did it make any difference in the outcome? The panelists discussed how analysis was used and what effect it had on the rules finally adopted. It was agreed that analysis was used, not as a tool in the hands of decisionmakers, but rather as a weapon in the hands of the contending parties. Nevertheless, analysis had an important effect by strengthening the FCC's perceptions of cable's possible benefits and damping fears of its offsetting harms, resulting in a compromise outcome that is more encouraging to cable growth than it otherwise would have been.
What are the relationships between policy analysis and policy decisions ? This is an important question, not only because of the large cost of the efforts now being devoted to analysis, but even more so because of the very large potential benefit of effective analysis. We try to shed some light on the question here, hoping that more understanding of how analysis is now used will lead eventually to improvements in the way it is used.
We focus on one particular case: the adoption by the Federal Communications Commission early in 1972 of new regulationst to govern cable television systems. The new regulations came at the end of a decade of increasing FCC involvement with cable, z During that period, spokesmen for the affected industries--television broadcasters, cable television systems, the owners of copyrighted programs, television networks--argued forcefully for their various points of view.3 Many used research 1 FCC (1972a). 2 For a short history of cane television and its regulation, see the report of the Sloan Commission