 | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Abalone
available to all for a nominal fee, have become what Anthony Riddle, executive director of the Alliance for Community Media in Washington, calls "the public square in the electronic age." I'd be interested in what numbers public access channels pull. I'd think they were teeny tiny / nonexistent.
The real "public square in the electronic age", as most know, is the Internet. And with the advent of audio and video (still wishing for a better vogue word) "podcasting", that's where people turn for interesting obscure stuff.
I really, really don't much care about "public access television".
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|  | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Abalone Just because you do not care doesn't mean others feel the same way. When I was in Austin public access had a wealth of interesting shows (and odd-ball freaks). I don't think any avenue of community broadcasts should be taken down, and that includes public access channels.
The Internet is hardly a "public square in the electronic age" if you ask me. A public square denotes a local area where people gather or at least hear things in passing. On the Internet you have to specifically find a website, then download/stream whatever audio/visual content there is. Hardly something you can catch in passing. A cable channel on the other hand can be picked up by anybody in the area while they are channel surfing. Might sound like a stretch, but I caught onto Austin public access by channel surfing. Something that just wouldn't happen online. | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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! | |
| | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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 | Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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! | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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. | |
| | | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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 | Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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 | Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why?There's a topic? 
-- B | |
| | | | | | | | 
cowardly poster
@dsl-w.verizon
 from:
SRFireside
| 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
| 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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
| Re: You want others to pay for your speech--why? 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! | |
| | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
edit:
September 27th, @08:03PM
| Re: Abalone said by SRFireside :The Internet is hardly a "public square in the electronic age" if you ask me. A public square denotes a local area where people gather or at least hear things in passing. On the Internet you have to specifically find a website, then download/stream whatever audio/visual content there is. Hardly something you can catch in passing. A cable channel on the other hand can be picked up by anybody in the area while they are channel surfing. Might sound like a stretch, but I caught onto Austin public access by channel surfing. Something that just wouldn't happen online. You're serious? It "just wouldn't happen" that one would find something on the Internet or the web by merely "surfing" past it?
I have to imagine you're making a little joke.
A web site or RSS feed or chatroom etc. etc. etc. can be "picked up by anybody in the world" while they are surfing. And there are plenty of "local" sites like »nj.com that serve as focal points for smaller communities.
It seems the only advantage of public access TV is an existing production infrastructure and funding model.
My point is that for people who wish to have their say and produce content for audiences, it's ridiculous to play in a little pool of local TV when they can publish to the country or the world. Not to mention all the OTA and satellite viewers who will NEVER see the stuff -- this gives lie to your assertion that "a cable channel on the other hand can be picked up by anybody in the area while they are channel surfing". It's a very small userbase compared to the total number of TV sets in any given locale.
Admittedly, the current state of the art in video "podcasting" is rather primitive. But I expect that to change very rapidly.
Edit: I'm being too harsh -- I'm sure there's a fair amount of value in the current public access channels, and they're probably moderately easier than self-publishing. (Look guys I'm on TV!) But it always seemed like a toy to me, one that never really grew into much. My favorite public access show is "The Dare Show", part of The Amanda Show.
-- B | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Abalone said by B :My point is that for people who wish to have their say and produce content for audiences, it's ridiculous to play in a little pool of local TV when they can publish to the country or the world. That's the point of calling it something similar to a town square. It's not meant to attract boatloads of viewers. It's a place where locals can go and get on the camera and do whatever (rant, entertain, inform, etc). The fact it's all local and amateur is what makes public access endearing to people in the community.
Keep in mind not all people who do cable access shows have the knowledge or resources to put together a web site. You would be surprised at the amount of people still afraid of HTML. Public access can be a simple as walking into the studio, sitting down on a chair and talking to the camera. Also keep in mind many people who are public access personalities do have websites. Public access is still the easiest way to get the locals to see you though.
Which is easier? Surfing channels and coming up on a PA show or Googling for local "town square" stuff? With channel surfing it's always there and you'll never miss it. Online there's no telling what a search result will come up with and sometimes if you don't put in keywords that are specific enough you miss quite a few things. Also there is no guarantee it's really local.
Also, as you said, podcasting is still in its early stages and can't really hold up to the video/audio feed of a cable channel in overall quality. Not only that streaming data instantly adds bandwidth to your website, which can cost a lot of money if a lot of people are watching. Public access is cheap or free to the one hosting the show no matter how many people tune in. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| One other factor in comparing the internet to public access.
Public access television and radio are covered by any copyright agreements held by the cable company that supplies their channel capacity. Further, they receive several exemptions through federal law. Thus they are able to use a wide library of music (generally the entire ASCAP/BMI libraries at minimum) and video footage in the production of their material.
Websites and podcasting do not receive these exemptions.
--
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 | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by B :I'd be interested in what numbers public access channels pull. I'd think they were teeny tiny / nonexistent. The real "public square in the electronic age", as most know, is the Internet. And with the advent of audio and video (still wishing for a better vogue word) "podcasting", that's where people turn for interesting obscure stuff. I really, really don't much care about "public access television". -- B Well, in most metro cities, public access viewership pulls bigger viewer numbers than the total number of broadband subscribers....
Besides, one of the bigger functions of public access is that it provides cheap community training on video production and access to remote feed equipment.
--
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 | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
edit:
September 28th, @09:47PM
| I have no idea if it is true in Corvallis. I just moved here. It is true for the entire state of Iowa where I moved from, as well as Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan.
It would not surprise me though if California passed some crackpot liberal law against it.
I am curious though. Did you actually make any effort to check if your city disallows opting out of the public access pass through? How much is the public access pass through for your city anyway?
--
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
edit:
September 29th, @05:01PM
| Re: Abalone It's not separately broken out on my cable bill, in part because Comcast's obligation here is to provide the studio and production services, a relatively costly and open-ended expense that they have indicated a desire to reduce to monetary terms by paying some other entity to do it. (Avoiding the imposed necessity of funding this political plum isn't a viable option in Marin County.)
When I lived elsewhere, it wasn't broken out there either.
Perhaps you've been fortunate in that every city you've lived in has let you escape paying for the dissemination of political views other than your own, but I honestly believe that if cable franchise authorities gave that option generally, this funding source would dry up.
I'd like to see a copy of ANY franchise terms that allow subscribers to "opt out" of paying for "public access."
calvoiper | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Abalone Update here.
As part of the discussion elsewhere, I read 47 USC 543. Subsection 543(b)(4) makes it clear that as part of the costs of basic tier cable (the only tier which local authorities can price-regulate) the local franchise authority must include the properly attributable costs of "public access."
NO local government can force a cable company to allow "opt-out" for "public access" funding.
Where did you say this option supposedly exists?
Time to lay out your evidence, or admit that you made it up.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Abalone said by calvoiper :As part of the discussion elsewhere, I read 47 USC 543. Subsection 543(b)(4) makes it clear that as part of the costs of basic tier cable (the only tier which local authorities can price-regulate) the local franchise authority must include the properly attributable costs of "public access." NO local government can force a cable company to allow "opt-out" for "public access" funding. 543(b)(4) is a requirement on federal basic cable rate regulation (not local). It specifies that there must be a standard for determining which portions of a basic cable bill are used to meet franchise requirements for PEG support. Those portions of the rate are excluded from consideration when setting basic cable rates in the appeal process.
543(c)(2) actually lays out the components of the rate regulation decision.
--
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
| Re: Abalone Reread section 543, marigolds. It specifies the rules the FCC must adopt to govern state and local cable price regulation. The second sentence specifies, "Any franchising authority may regulate the rates for the provision of cable service, or any other communications service provided over a cable system to cable subscribers, but only to the extent provided under this section." The entire section deals with how the FCC structures the process for state and local franchising authorities to follow. 543(b), including (b)(4), is part of that process.
543(c), however, is the process to be used if a rate outside the regulated basic tier is thought "unreasonable", a much looser standard than local authorities are authorized to use setting basic tier rates. This process does indeed involve the FCC directly, but is not at issue in this discussion.
I repeat my challenge for you to document a single occurrence of your supposed "opt out" ability to avoid subsidizing others' political speech.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Abalone Local authorities cannot set basic tier rates. They can only specify which channels must be provided on the basic tier. That is how the FCC has chosen to operate under this law.
Basic tier rates can only be set by the FCC, but a local authority can appeal a rate to the FCC to receive a ruling.
I have opted out of public access support before. It is printed directly on the bill in most cities who to contact. In many cities, public access support is even opt in only as the cable company is required to make a lump sum payment that cannot be passed through and include a bill flyer concerning public access support. Just because your city does it one way does not mean that it is the normal mode of operation.
Note I am specifically talking about public access operational support, not PEG support, not public access capital support. We are talking about the money used to pay public access staff and only the money used to pay public access staff, not studio equipment, not studio space, not educational or governmental staff. That is the money at issue in the original article.
--
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 | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :It's not separately broken out on my cable bill, in part because Comcast's obligation here is to provide the studio and production services, a relatively costly and open-ended expense that they have indicated a desire to reduce to monetary terms by paying some other entity to do it. (Avoiding the imposed necessity of funding this political plum isn't a viable option in Marin County.) I missed this part earlier.
There is the problem for your area. Instead of a third-party contractor, Comcast is the supplier of public access services. That's what happens when cities are stupid.
Yep, you are stuck with the fee then because it is not a pass through fee. And Comcast gets to keep all the money. When a cable company supplies the access services, they normally combine services across a whole county and come out on the plus side of the fee:cost balance.
For the midwest, the model is different. Funding goes as a pass through fee and supports operations. The public access entity is responsible for paying through their own studio space (generally through telethons and other fundraisers) and providing their own production services (though broadcasting equipment funding can be required as part of the franchise, generally at about $0.10-$0.75 per subscriber).
A pass through fee is similar in legal structure to long distance companies billing you through your local phone bill. That is not the case in your specific situation. If a city choose to, it could pass legislation making the paying of public access support a legal obligation, but I do not think I have ever seen such a specific franchise ordinance.
--
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
| Re: Abalone As described in the "what public access really is" thread, the costs of PEG support, whether or not directly includable in the federal 5% cap, are required to be part of the rate setting process for basic cable. "Opt out" is not an option, and I don't believe it exists.
I repeat my challenge for documentation of an "opt out" procedure anywhere.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| jhh
join:2005-05-25
Fargo, ND
| Damn,will no longer know when the Park dept meets I don't mind one channel for city council meetings, city announcements, and school projects. But my city wants 4 of these lame channels when they cannot even fill enough programming blocks on one channel. Also people can make up there own minds on whether it is beneficial to have access to these channels. I am so sick of this fight and 911 not being avail on voip. If 911 is something you need, stick with bell. And if you see some sort of benefit from Public Access, then stick with cable. But I can live without any of these. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Damn,will no longer know when the Park dept me said by jhh :I don't mind one channel for city council meetings, city announcements, and school projects. But my city wants 4 of these lame channels when they cannot even fill enough programming blocks on one channel. Also people can make up there own minds on whether it is beneficial to have access to these channels. I am so sick of this fight and 911 not being avail on voip. If 911 is something you need, stick with bell. And if you see some sort of benefit from Public Access, then stick with cable. But I can live without any of these. Wrong kind of channel. You are talking about government access. Often times the number of channels there is more of a political problem than anything else(do you bump the school board meeting for the city council meeting and the city council meeting for graduation?).
The issue above is that public access would no longer be available on cable under the state-level franchise agreements due to a lack of funding.
--
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
| What "public access" really is.... Copied from an earlier post I made about three weeks ago:
As for the "public access support" ... I say: GOOD RIDDANCE!
All I've seen from those types of programs funded by local franchise fees is a mess of programming which is either propaganda saying how great local politicians are, or a slop of programming fawning over various "non-profit" and "public interest" organizations that then, in turn, endorse, support, and work for those politicians who control the committees that run these channels. In other words, pure incest committed with public money.
To the extent that there are any "public access" channels that broadcast anything more worthwhile than the basement cr@p so wonderfully satirized on "Wayne's World", I say let them justify their existence as any public tax eating program should, and don't hide their expenses in an indirect slush fund of broadcasting asserts controlled at the top by local political honchos.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| |
See 26 replies to this post | |
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | IPTV Well what's the channel limit with IPTV? Seems like you could get as many as network addressing allows since it's not a constant broadcast medium. | |
| | | |
|
|
Bell TV & the Death of Public Access
