WARWICK –– The state’s three cable TV companies have asked state regulators to keep secret some of the details the businesses are required to file about their operations each year.

Eric Palazzo, the state’s top cable regulator, has granted that request.

Cox Communications, Verizon Communications and Full Channel TV all contend that releasing some of the information in their annual reports, such as how many customers each company has, would harm their competitive positions.

Cox has gone a step further by also requesting that financial information, such as its balance sheet and income statements, be kept confidential as well.

These filings, in their entirety, have been made available to the public for 25 years.

Palazzo said the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers supported cable competition within Rhode Island, adding “We do not want to do anything that the companies feel would be negative in the competitive environment.”

The three companies filed their annual reports Tuesday, the deadline for doing so. The Journal has asked Thomas Ahern, administrator of the division, to review Palazzo’s decision to withhold the information.

Ahern said that state law gives the agency 10 days to respond to The Journal’s request. He said that Palazzo has asked the cable companies to file memos that expand upon their reasons for wanting to keep the information confidential.

The state rules that govern cable TV have required cable companies to file annual reports since the industry’s inception in Rhode Island in the early 1980s.

The reports are to contain information about each company’s ownership, management, financial condition, facilities, services and subscriber information.

Palazzo, associate public utilities administrator for cable TV, said those rules were written at a time when the industry was just beginning, and there were 10 to 12 companies operating cable franchises in the state.

State regulators, he said, wanted to be sure of the success of these companies, and to determine whether they were following through on their requirements to provide a certain level of service.

Cox said in its annual report that releasing subscriber count and financial information “would cause substantial harm to Cox’s competitive position as a provider of cable service.”

Verizon said that the number of customers subscribing to its FiOS fiber-optic cable TV service is “highly confidential and competitively sensitive” information.

“Its release would enable Verizon NE’s competitors to evaluate the success of Verizon’s FiOS TV service by Service Area and allow them to customize their own marketing and promotional strategies in response.”

Full Channel made a verbal request to keep subscriber information confidential, said Steve Martin, senior cable TV regulatory analyst for the DPUC. The company also marked some of its documents as confidential information.

Palazzo said he complied with the companies’ requests because he didn’t want to do anything that might harm any of the companies.

“If they’re concerned, I’m concerned,” he said. “I want to make sure nothing impinges on choice” of cable companies that customers now have.

Linda Lotridge Levin, a professor of journalism at the University of Rhode Island, said the information that the cable companies don’t want disclosed could be helpful to consumers.

“If you have the information, then you can make a better informed decision,” Levin said, who is also chairwoman of Access Rhode Island, a group that works to ensure that the workings of government are open to the citizens of the state.

“As a proponent of open government .... I think the residents of the state have a right to know the details of these businesses.”

She said that since these companies are regulated by the state, citizens “should be able to know what our state is regulating.”

The most recent subscriber counts were made public last summer. As of June 30, Cox had 307,625 customers, while Full Channel had 6,930. Verizon has not released the number of FiOS subscribers it has on a state-by-state basis.

Verizon’s annual report contained financial information that reflected its entire operations in New England, including its telephone services. It did not break down the financial results for its cable operations.

Palazzo said the rules didn’t specifically state that the information had to pertain only to Rhode Island. But he said he would review the filing to make sure it complies with the rules.

Seymour Glantz, a longtime member of the Cable Advisory Committee for Service Area 5, said he wasn’t sure whether disclosing subscriber count information was really that damaging to the cable companies.

“They use the excuse that they want to keep their competition off-guard so that they don’t know what’s going on,” Glantz said. “I don’t know whether that’s really key.”

He added that the advisory group, which focuses mainly on public access issues, was not that concerned about subscriber counts.

tbarmann@projo.com