calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to SRFireside
You want others to pay for your speech--why?
I see in your response a desire not just to enable viewpoints to be put out there, but to actually inflict them on people who may have no desire to hear them at all.
I don't believe freedom of speech includes the right to force anyone to listen, even if it's "just a taste."
I particularly don't think that subscribers should be forced to underwrite the dissemination of ideas with which they may not agree. Public access may be great in some communities--in which case it should be ranked in budget priorities along with police, fire, and street repair. In those terms, we'll see if it merits public funding.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper  :I particularly don't think that subscribers should be forced to underwrite the dissemination of ideas with which they may not agree. Public access may be great in some communities--in which case it should be ranked in budget priorities along with police, fire, and street repair. In those terms, we'll see if it merits public funding. Public access is not funded by the government. It is funded by cable subscribers through pass through fees, but those funds are paid directly from the cable company to a non-governmental public access provider.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by marigolds :Public access is not funded by the government. It is funded by cable subscribers through pass through fees, but those funds are paid directly from the cable company to a non-governmental public access provider. As I've explained in greater detail below, it's a government forced expenditure of money, the cost of which is passed on to cable consumers. It's a hidden tax, and it's all the more pernicious because it allows the political agenda of "public access" to hide the fact that it's funded with what should be tax revenue.
If you gave cable consumers the choice of not paying for public access, they wouldn't, and it would die. If you made the cable companies pay local government what they pay for "public access", the local governments would have the option to spend it on something more worthwhile, and "public access" would have to JUSTIFY ITS EXISTENCE, INSTEAD OF JUST SLURPING AWAY AT A POLITICALLY CORRECT SLUSH FUND. Either way, cable consumers and the public would be ahead.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :If you gave cable consumers the choice of not paying for public access, they wouldn't, and it would die. You do have that choice. That is how pass through fees work.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by marigolds :You do have that choice. That is how pass through fees work. No, I don't. It's a mandatory fee that I have to pay if I want cable--it's not an option that I can decline to pay. Maybe it is in Corvallis, but not here and not most places.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to calvoiper
How is having a television channel forcing views on you? I have no idea where you get I want other viewpoints "inflicted" on people. Hello? Freedom of speech means the freedom to be heard. If you don't want to hear then just don't listen. How do you do that in public access? Oh. I don't know. Maybe CHANGE THE CHANNEL?
How many cable channels are out there that you do not wish to have yet are being paid for anyway? Home Shopping Network? Cooking Channel? CSPAN? I see no reason for public access channels not to be a part of this collection as well. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should not get the support other channels enjoy. |
|
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by SRFireside :Freedom of speech means the freedom to be heard. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. No one anywhere has the right to be heard. Even the President doesn't get TV time whenever he wants it. When he makes a speech or gives a press conference, it's up to the networks to decide whether they'll carry it or not. Speak all you want, about whatever you want, but you can't eliminate the public's right to ignore you. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Everybody has a right to be heard. Maybe not on television, but they have that right. You have a problem with your government? You have the right to speak up and bear your grievances. You have a problem with a company? You have the right to take it up to their office, and if they don't listen you have the right to take it to the media. In a democracy nobody is supposed to be silenced.
Now that we have that tangent out of the way, what does it have to do with public access channels? Of course gaining air time on public access isn't guaranteed and there is no guarantee the channel will let you have your show even if there were. The point of my statement was not to say you can force your voice onto others. The point is you are free to speak out. Whether you listen or not is up to you. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :No, I don't. It's a mandatory fee that I have to pay if I want cable--it's not an option that I can decline to pay. There are plenty of hoops to jump through, but in most cases you can get out of paying it. Sometimes you have to pay it but can get it refunded. That is true in nearly every city.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Not in mine. Anybody else out there, in anyplace besides Corvallis, able to avoid payment of their "public access" fee?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :Everybody has a right to be heard. Maybe not on television, but they have that right. You have a problem with your government? You have the right to speak up and bear your grievances. You have a problem with a company? You have the right to take it up to their office, and if they don't listen you have the right to take it to the media. In a democracy nobody is supposed to be silenced. Wait a second -- where did this "right" come from?
All the Constitution implies is that the government can't restrict your right to speech (by passing a law, etc.)
Where do you get this idea that you have any "right to take it up to their office" in a company? As far as I know there has never been any such right. A company can EASILY bar you from the premises and tell you to screw off. Of course, you can always choose to sue them (or press criminal charges if applicable).
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Which ultimately means you do get your right to be heard. Can we get back on topic now? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | There's a topic? 
-- B |
|
cowardly poster
@dsl-w.verizon
 from:
SRFireside
| reply to B
The right to free speech and the right to be heard are connected. If you remove the possibility of being heard than the right to free speech is an illusion. Therefore, the "right" of free speech implies a "possibility" of being heard, but not a "right" of being heard.
The community square (and it's counterpart, public access TV) does not provide a "right" of being heard (people can always walk away), but it does provide the "possibility" of being heard.
The cable company is charging you a fee to subsidize public access. So what? It's the business model that you've agreed to. You end up subsidizing ALL channels that you receive, whether you watch them or not. ESPN charges the cable TV company more than any other channel by far. If you don't watch ESPN, you are subsidizing anybody that does. When was the last time someone that watches ESPN thanked you for paying a little extra every month so that they could watch ESPN?
OK, so I occasionally watch public access, so thank you for paying a little extra every month so that I could watch public access. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :Everybody has a right to be heard. Maybe not on television, but they have that right. You have a problem with your government? You have the right to speak up and bear your grievances. ... Sorry, despite all of the various wordplay above, I have to point out that a re-reading of the First Amendment is in order.
The First Amendment provides for freedom of speech, but it separately provides for the right to petition the government. The second right is what gives you a right "to be heard" by the government; the points made above that you have no right to necessarily be "heard" by non-governmental entities including corporations and individuals (as well as cable companies and their subscribers) are correct.
In some locations (including, to a limited degree, shopping centers) the courts have indicated that space and/or access should be made available for free speech when those locations effectively replace the "town center" concept thought of by the Founders of constitutional government. To date (thankfully) no such court has held that cable TV is such a "replacement", and no such court probably ever will--if such arguments are made in the future, they will likely focus on the Internet, not on cable TV channel allocation.
As we (in the free world) have not yet reached limits on website addresses, speech remains very free on the Internet--but the situation differs because both a) there are limitations on basic cable TV channel allocation, and b) nobody is saying ISPs should be forced to fund website development or hosting on behalf of "community organizations".
As I've said elsewhere, this isn't about "free speech." It's about the creation of a political empire funded by governmental fiat, but one outside of the normal budgetary process and hidden from any sort of accountability. It's most prominent allegiance is to those local politicians who support it, and it's a politically incestuous setup.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| I don't know how public access is used in your community... well strike that. The way you have been talking about tells me public access in your area is not much more than a soundboard for political activism. Am I right? Sorry if that's the case. Public access where I saw it had shows ranging from that crazy political activist (such as the dude from www.infowars.com) finding conspiracies in every corner, massage therapy instructional shows, two goth girls taking phones calls, student films of all kinds including really weird ones, amateur VJ's with their music video showcase, live acts performing around town as well as in the TV studio, film footage of downtown festivals, religious talk shows (both fundie and moderate), Wayne's World-esque nonsense, and more.
Maybe from what you are seeing in your town public access is the creation of a political empire. In other places it's just as described: a town square. Unless you can show actual dollars being put into public access I don't think the hidden budget theory of yours holds water (refer to another post of mine as to why I think so). Lets also not forget the cable companies AGREED to support public access channels when they got their exclusive franchise for the area.
So really there are two things you are contending with: You being charged fees to support public access and what is exactly being funded. As far as fees you are already paying for channels you don't want in cable. What's the difference here? How much is exactly coming out of your pocket to pay for public access? Regarding the latter I think we covered that and if your community is using public access for more dubious plans I suggest you take that up with your local government. That's not inherent in PB itself. It's seems to be just what varies from city to city. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| said by SRFireside :Lets also not forget the cable companies AGREED to support public access channels when they got their exclusive franchise for the area. Well, that point alone makes your argument. They shouldn't be weaseling out of a commitment that helped grant their monopoly powers.
I wonder why the satellite companies were not required to provide several local TV studios per state. They have to deal with all that local broadcast / blackouts / waivers nonsense.
Or do the "must carry" rules mean that local public access shows ARE shown on satellite now? (Though obviously not produced in their studios.) I haven't checked.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| OK, so local governments should be able to extort any sort of "support" for favored projects in return for granting permits to do business? You are supporting the antithesis of open government. What's next? We put the arm on grocery stores to give food to homeless shelters so that the true cost of supporting those shelters is both hidden from the public and outside the budget process? Maybe we tell car dealers they have to provide free cars to the city so the council members can have free cars to use without it showing up on the budget? Or how about we make dry-cleaners clean the cops' uniforms for free and we make restaurants give cops free meals? These are all disgusting hidden uses of local governmental power.
It's exactly the fact that I can't identify the monies going into this political slush fund that bothers me--I can identify and trace tax receipts, and petition my local governments about how to spend them. This is a hidden squeeze, and it's only the fact that the end result is a political one you like that causes you to support the result.
Maybe you're happy with government wasting your money on goth girls and nut cases, but I'm not.
Finally, saying that the capability implementing satellite blackouts means the capacity to broadcast local "public access" is a demonstration of your lack of knowledge about the technology. Broadcasting local "public access" would require local channels for each jurisdiction. Blackouts are implemented by turning off the channel in your set-top box, not by wasting satellite capacity by broadcasting different channels for different metro areas.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
