The state of public access
Brian Caterino
An
article in June 9, 2000 Democrat and Chronicle recounts the attempt by Time
Warner at that time to move its own channel, CW Network, from channels from 16
to 12. In order to accommodate the move to the more commercially lucrative channel,
access channel 12 was to be moved. This
move never happened because a coalition of municipal official’s access
directors and citizens stopped it. They impressed upon Time Warner that PEG
channels were to stay on the lowest basic tier in order that PEG channels reach
their widest audience and fulfill their public interest function.. Many viewers
browse on the first channels and view PEG programs they would not otherwise
see. The higher PEG channels are placed on the system the less viewers they
will have.
If we cut to 2013
we find a totally different scenario. In May Time Warner sent a letter to
subscribers detailing plans to move PEG channels from 4, 12 and 15 to digital
channels 98.3, 98.4 and 98.5 for subscribers who do not have a digital cable
box. Receiving these channels also required obtaining a digital receiver which
while currently free will require a fee later. The effect of this move is to
marginalize PEG channels for a significant number of subscribers – likely those
least able to cope with it. Faced with the need for another potentially
expensive device to setup many will not even get the device and have no access
to PEG channels. For others the location will lead to little browsing or watching.
Municipal meetings school programs and citizen produced programs will rarely be
viewed. Claims that his done in the name of better quality seem dubious. In Maine the rollout of these digital boxes
provoked complaints about poor signal quality.
But the issue is not about a prettier picture. It is about the public
interest obligations of the cable company and the municipalities.
Unlike the 2000
change, there was no mention of the issue in the Democrat and Chronicle and no
organized opposition to the move. I FOIA’ed several Westside towns and talked
to the mayor of another municipality in an attempt to find out if any action
had been taken. I found the towns were
not consulted in advance. They simply got the same letter consumer did. Instead of active opposition however, municipal
leaders took a passive attitude. I
wonder why leaders did nothing to protect the public interests of cable
customers. Their passivity signifies a
waning commitment to the value of PEG channels.
Not everyone
accepted this change without protest. For example the town board of Woodstock
NY faced with a similar change, voted to oppose it. In contrast municipal
leaders believe they have no recourse against Time Warner’s move. This is
another change from the 2000 case. Today Time Werner has a virtual monopoly on
cable service in all of upstate New York. With no threat of competition it has
negotiated longer contracts with less desirable terms and gained more power to
define the terms of public service with little opposition. The Public service commission
seems to have been captured by the interests it was supposed to regulate. They
have interpreted regulatory rules in a way that allow Cable Company to lessen
public obligations.
As far as I can
determine some towns bargained away their power with no apparent gain in the most
recent 15 year contracts. They no longer seem to have the right to keep public
access stations on the first channels
but only on the first 100 or so channels. I do not know why they did this, but
it does not absolve them of responsibility. They still had the power if they
acted collectively to make the cable company back down.
In the past Time
Warner has shown little regard for PEG services. When it assumed control of
Westside access it required residents to submit tapes in professional formats
inaccessible to typical PEG users. Time
Warner has also changed leased access meant to be a low cost alternative for
local producers to air their shows, by tasking it of f of the lowest tier often
eliminating the most likely audience. When you contact Time Warner about lased
access time you are originally would reasonable price as the FCC mandates.
However, you then have to obtain very expensive errors and omissions insurance
and are charged a $50 fee to run a tape. All of a sudden the price is
prohibitive or most local producers. As a result leased access is a wasteland
mostly the home for non-local infomercials.
If Time Warner has the power to dictate terms I believe this will be the
future of PEG
In an environment
in which regulatory protection is ineffective or lacking it is up to municipal
officials access operators and citizens to raise these questions and defend the
public interest obligations of cable television. However some think that the
internet has supplanted PEG Channels, They are wrong. PEG channels represent a
general public interest in a way that internet publics fail to achieve. Internet
publics are highly selective. Individuals choose to seek information and friends
that are congenial to their own point of view and filter out those messages
that are unpleasant. . They often have the effect of fragmenting and negating
public interest rather than creating it. They represent the epitome of isolated
individual choice.
In contrast
general interest publics can not be understood as a set of isolated individual
choices (like the market). The public requires some common interests that bind
a community together. Moreover general interest publics provide access to
heterogeneous views that would not be generally selected by individuals. It
provides shared exposure to diverse speakers with diverse views and complaints.
These rights and opportunities are precisely what internet publics filter
out. Further these forums engender a
public salience that can define issues and influence policy. They provide a
modest cosmopolitanism.
When PEG channels
are moved away from those basic tiers that have the widest browsing audience
when their access is restricted by technology or cost or even signal quality
than it becomes a form of filtering that devalues the functions of PEG
channels. We ought to be strengthening them rather than marginalizing them.
