Re-Regulation of Cable May Get Fresh Look : Television: A last-minute compromise could revive a measure that appeared to die two weeks ago.

A last minute compromise involving the right of cable television operators to obtain exclusive programming appeared to breathe new life Thursday into Senate legislation that would re-regulate the cable industry.

But the bill still could be prevented from coming to a vote by Republican senators allied with the Bush Administration, which has threatened a veto on the grounds that the industry would be subjected to excessive regulation if the measure passes.

The Senate bill is expected to pass easily if allowed to come to a vote. A similar version already has been approved by the House.

“This compromise moves forward legislation that provides consumers important protections and brings competition to the cable industry,” said Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.), an advocate of cable re-regulation who worked out the compromise in an attempt to revive the measure.

The legislation, prompted in part by widespread consumer complaints about cable television services, would restore some of the regulatory oversight that was eliminated when the industry was deregulated in 1984.

The measure would authorize the Federal Communication Commission to set rates for a basic tier of cable service consisting primarily of over-the-air stations such as the three major networks and PBS. It also would empower the FCC to review rates deemed excessive for pay channels such as HBO, CNN or ESPN.

The re-regulation effort appeared to have died two weeks ago, when a key ally of cable operators, Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.), threatened a filibuster that would have prevented the measure from coming to a vote.

Wirth, whose state is home to the nation’s largest cable operator, objected to the Senate bill because it would not have protected the right of cable operators to have exclusive rights over certain kinds of programming.

Gore and other critics argue that allowing cable operators to have exclusive use of programming will inhibit the development of competing technologies.

The compromise would authorize some kinds of exclusive programming contracts, while prohibiting others.

A cable operator could not, for example, demand the exclusive right to air certain programs as a way to clearly inhibit development of competition.

An operator also could not demand that clusters of channels be sold to it exclusively or insist on exclusive rights to programming that previously had been non-exclusive.

Gene Kimmelman of the Consumer Federation of America praised the compromise.

“This . . . will promote increased competition to the cable industry and should help clear the way for this important consumer legislation,” he said.