Congress to Look into PEG Channel Issues

Waxman Says Commerce Will Look Into Access to PEG Channels

Accessibliity considered crucial for disabled Americans

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 7/21/2010 6:20:32 PM


House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry
Waxman (D-Calif.) called access to PEG channels an
important issue and one the committee would look into.

That came in a markup Wednesday on the 21st Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (HR 3101),
which passed out of committee Wednesday on a voice vote.
The assurance was made to Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.),
who agreed to withdraw an amendment to the bill on
PEG channels that could have slowed its progress.
Baldwin outlined the amendment before withdrawing it
(which is away for her to make the point without holding
up the larger bill).

She had asked for assurances that the committee would take
up PEG issues "in the near future." Those issues included
the move of PEG channels from analog to digital tiers,
the clustering on digital channels on subchannels to a single,
menu-driven channel, and other moves by cable operators
that she argues can make them harder to access, including
for the disabled.

She said PEG channels "serve as a lifeline to Americans with
disabilities," helping them stay connected by monitoring
and engaging in local government and distant learning classes,
or even go to church.

"While we strive for digital inclusion," she said, "we must
protect and enhance the existing access to news and civic life
available to PEG channels. Her amendment would have made
sure that PEG providers would have to meet the same
standards for accessibility as broadcasters.

It would also require that subscribers be able to "rely on
their PEG channels for emergency alerts" Baldwin did not spell
out exactly where that was going with that part of the
amendment, but did say that her concern was that when PEG
channels are moved from an analog to a digital tier, "they
are completely inaccessible to analog cable customers,"
which she said placed "an unnecessary burden on low-income
and fixed-income individuals and families and people with
disabilities."

The amendment is based on her Community Access
PreservationAct (HR 3745), which she introduced last October
and requires that PEG channels be just as accessible as
broadcast must-carry stations carried on a cable system.
That essentially means that to move PEG channels to digital,
an operator would have to move broadcast channels to that
tieras well. And if there are no must-carry stations, PEG
channels would have to be available to every sub at no
additional charge.

"You have raised a very important issue that we need to look
more carefully," said Waxman, who added that he would talk
with her and committee leaders about "what we can do in
this area."

House Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing on Public Access TV Sept 2008

Discussion on the damages caused to Public Access TV Channels and the state-wide cable franchising issue. Video Provided by the Alliance for Community Media.

Send Comments to the FCC for Community TV

Tell the FCC: Support Local TV

Local media is in crisis. Towns and cities across America are losing their commercial news oulets, while pink slips are being handed to the reporters who once covered our communities. We cannot afford to lose any more local media.

Community television can help fill the void left by a collapsing media system. But the most prevalent form -- local public access stations (or PEG channels) -- is under attack by the likes of AT&T and Comcast, which are trying to bury community stations on their networks and make them difficult to find.

You Can Help: Protect Community Television

Free Press has joined forces with local governments, community media producers and other organizations that believe local media play a vital role in our democracy. We're working together to urge the FCC to stop efforts by cable and phone giants to squash public access TV, but we need your help.

The deadline to comment at the FCC expires in less than 36 hours. Please make sure that the commission hears from the public about the importance of local media.

Click here to file your comment

Community stations foster democratic participation in local government by airing town and city council meetings. They are also an outlet for local independent producers and everyday citizens who want to make their own television shows.

For many, public access television is an antidote to media consolidation. We must work together to protect and promote these vital community services.

Onward,

Candace Clement
Campaign Coordinator
Free Press
http://www.freepress.net/

1. To learn more and read our filing to the FCC, visit:http://www.freepress.net/policy/public_media/public_access_tv

2. All comments filed to the FCC are considered a matter of public record. Your comments will be publicly accessible at the FCC Web site. The FCC does not accept comments from outside the United States.

Our Next Meeting with a City Councilman

Our next meeting with a San Antonio City Council member is Monday, May 14th with San Antonio City Councilman Roland Gutierrez District 3 councilman. District 3 is in the Southside. The meeting is to lobby for a new community media access center. 1:30pm. Tel 534-1300.
Update: We met with the Staff of councilmen Gutierrez at City Base on the Southside. We gave them the presentation and they gave us some feedback. We did find that there were some misconceptions with the city staff as to what had happened to public access (they had the impression we were using Maverick Studios), so this gave us an opportunity to educate them on the history of public access in San Antonio and the situation we find ourselves in now.



Then Wednesday, May 16th, our meeting is with San Antonio City Council member Art Hall of District 8 at 9:30am. District 8 is in the Northwest side of town.Tel 207-7086.

Update. We met with Councilman Hall and one of his staff members downtown and had a short 15 minute meeting. He was very supportive but did tell us that funding directly from the general fund would be a very hard sell to the City Council and that we would need to have a good detailed presentation to be able to convince them. He also mentioned that the City Council was basically split in half with one half being supportive of Public Access and the other half not being that supportive. This is why it is important that we meet with City Council members and their staff to give them better insight into who we are as a public access community and the benefits of public access.

What Makes AT&T's U-Verse Tick?

This is a recent article by Jennifer Harris, of the Center for Digital Democracy. It mentions an issue of concern in San Antonio.

The Universe According to AT&T’s U-verse

By: Jennifer Harris

AT&T's leap into the converged world is illustrated in its two-pronged IPTV approach, Homezone and U-verse. IPTV is a system that enables digital television sets to be programmed using the more personalized data delivery method of the Internet – Internet Protocol.

U-verse, as explained by Joe Laszlo of JupiterKagan Research, is considered "the end-game" for AT&T. U-verse is similar to a cable-like video service offered by way of phone lines and to only those privileged enough to have fiber in their neighborhoods. Homezone, a hybrid satellite/IPTV service offered in conjunction with Dish Network, is a second-tier option offered to customers who don't want to wait (or may never see) fiber optic appear in their city. The cities able to yield the highest return on investment for the pricey deployment of fiber cables will get services first, while other communities remain on the back-burner. AT&T’s model of preferential treatment extends throughout the formation of their IPTV service, stepping up quality for those with deep pockets and standing aside for those without. By building a new media system that perpetuates the anti-competitive communications market and neglects the public interest, AT&T delivers a service to customers that falls short of its connective and innovative potential.

Traditional media is inevitably shifting from being a source primarily for entertainment to becoming a networked system that connects households inextricably to their educational, civic, health and buying needs. New media services will no longer be classified as stand-alone luxuries, because convergence is melding voice, video and data into singular systems essential for information sharing and communications. IPTV, and other new media services, will become staples in American households (much like electricity or telephone service) and become necessities in the information age. As AT&T sets the stage for an IPTV service that plays favorites between the haves and have-nots, it is setting in motion a system that restricts information, and allocates it only to the wealthy and the well-connected. The fiber lines being laid are dividing more than just parts of a city; AT&T is creating a lopsided playing field that will ultimately leave citizens and communities out of countless opportunities for advancement and connectivity.

When AT&T refused to disclose their build-out plans in the Geneva, IL tri-state area, it soon became clear to city officials that the reason was because AT&T had no intentions of offering U-verse and other advanced broadband services to the entire community. Geneva’s IT manager said “they're asking us to specifically segregate and point to one part of our community and say, ‘…in order to let AT&T come in here, we're going to serve the east side of town but not the west.’”

Unwilling to negotiate under local franchising authority and abide by the rules set for cable providers, AT&T eventually took the city of Geneva to court (many other cities have also been dragged into similar legal battles: Milwaukee, WI, Walnut Creek & Livermore, CA, Naperville, IL and multiple Chicago suburbs). Ralph Ballart, former vice president of broadband at SBC Laboratories commented that "If we are going to build the IP (Internet Protocol) pipe, we want all the revenue streams." However, AT&T cannot guarantee that all parts of a community that allow the company to build the IP pipe will ultimately receive AT&T’s IP services. When AT&T officials are questioned specifically about obligations to build out services, they claim that U-verse cannot be classified as either a cable or telecommunications service; therefore previous rules do not apply.

If U-verse is neither accountable for previous obligations nor responsible in adhering to principles guiding future innovation, then how can customers expect to benefit from services that don’t have to truly serve them? AT&T, as a stipulation to their $86 billion merger with BellSouth, agreed to abide by a set of net neutrality principles, or guidelines that the company will not favor one set of online content above others. However the guidelines distinctly exclude AT&T’s “end game”, U-verse. If U-verse is truly where the buck stops then as David Isenberg recognizes “we have provided AT&T/[BellSouth] the means to render the proposed Network Neutrality condition on the merger violable, and…so weak as to be meaningless”. By discriminating against certain types of content, U-verse will be able to set the hierarchy – dictating which content is most valuable for you and your family.

Pay for Digital Play

AT&T is not only seeking to control broadband on the user end, but to parcel it out to preferred content providers as well. AT&T is taking harmful steps to ensure that non-commercial television has no future on IPTV sets. Consumers should not expect to see community-focused, noncommercial programming in the world of U-verse…at least not clearly.

A suspicious request made in an agreement between AT&T and San Antonio asked that PEG access centers send all programming to the provider at rates that would clearly degrade the content; ultimately making the community channels unwatchable to all viewers. Alliance for Community Media Executive Director, Anthony Riddle believes that by juxtaposing the pixilated community media channels with the crisp HD images of the other cable channels that “AT&T is pushing to ghettoize PEG channels on U-verse”.

As AT&T has shifted into the new media environment, they have made it very clear that they want to leave the public’s interests out of the big IPTV picture. AT&T is rolling out a service that is perpetually cutting corners – exploiting converging technologies and dodging local oversight. AT&T is taking measured and calculated steps that trim the edges off of previous obligations to serve communities.

The infrastructure for a powerful, interactive communications system deserves to be built on a model that will give back to communities exponentially. A U-verse system that is responsive to the public interest would open windows in communities: enhancing distance learning programs in disadvantaged school systems, generating economic potential in rural and urban areas by offering career advancement in IT and media fields, and by connecting families to valuable health and medical care not offered locally. However, U-verse amounts to a universe of untapped possibility. AT&T could construct a U-verse environment that works toward a long-term vision instead of being based around fleeting profits, but in AT&T’s U-verse - advertisers mean the world.

The Awkward Position of PEG vs. City Government

(click on the image to enlarge)

September 8, 2006

Communications and Public Affairs

City of San Antonio

P.O. Box 839966

San Antonio, Texas 78283-3966

Re: Document request

To Whom It May Concern:

Under Texas Government Code, Chapter 552 of the Public Information Act, I request copies of the itemized budget and all memos, documents, and correspondence related to the reinstatement of Public Access Digital Channel 20.

This is a follow-up to my last request, which was a copy of the agreement between the City of San Antonio and Time Warner Cable. I received that, and appreciate your diligence in dispersing these documents. Thank you for your service, time and attention.

Regards,

**********************************************************************************

October 24, 2006

Communications and Public Affairs

City of San Antonio (COSA)

P.O. Box 839966

San Antonio, Texas 78283-3966

To Whom It May Concern:

Under Texas Government Code, Chapter 552 of the Public Information Act, I request copies of the following:

A financial statement showing from which and to where the $415,000 of “Various funds were reallocated from [the 2006] budget for the reinstatement” of Time Warner Digital Channel 20 (referenced by John Danner in writing on 10.13.06 and in Chip Haass’ testimony on 4.27.06)

• Documents showing Time Warner, Grande, AT&T, and any other PEG vendor payments processed, and where funds were allocated, by COSA in 2006 (any monies, either 1% payments or 5% franchise fees, received or disbursed for PEG programming since 5.15.06, including any funds previously placed in escrow by Time Warner)
• A copy of the $1.8M proposal received by COSA from Time Warner by December 2005 (as referenced in “COSA PEG Transition” power point presentation 12.15.05)
• Copies of the bids evaluated by COSA from “seven different companies” to supply equipment and installation for the PEG channels (as referenced in “COSA PEG Transition” power point presentation 2.2.06)

These are follow-ups to my last request, which was “the itemized budget and all memos, documents, and correspondence related to the reinstatement of Public Access Digital Channel 20.” I apologize for the confusing request, and appreciate the care and concern exhibited by the COSA Attorney staff John Danner and Gabriel Garcia in responding to my requests. Thank you, again and in advance, for your service, time and attention.

Regards,

***********************************************************

March 14, 2007

Open Records Division

Attorney General’s Office

PO Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter serves to file complaint against the City of San Antonio (COSA) for non-compliance.

In OR2007-00603, your office (AG) held COSA responsible for releasing various documents related to PEG programming. On March 2, I received copies of nine checks paid to COSA, as well as what looks like a “working copy” of a PEG budget. I will spare you those enclosures, seeing as you previously reviewed them. Although informative, the COSA release does not fulfill the terms of your ruling.

In the ruling, you “note that [COSA] did not submit information responsive to items three and four of the request. We assume[s] the city has released this information to the requestor. If it has not, it must do so at this time…” To date, I have not received those items: a copy of the Time Warner proposal or bids evaluated from other companies.

I have not received parts one or two of that request either. COSA has not, or will not, release any documents showing allocation or reallocation of PEG funds in their 2006 budget. In addition, the check copies received do not include payments outside the May-Oct. 2006 window. COSA Attorney John Danner noted in the accompanying letter that “We have redacted the information that [AG] allowed us to redact.” The lack of documentation provided suggests a disparity between attorney’s offices.

Whether or not the requested documents were withheld under sections of the Public Information Act is beyond my knowledge. I am requesting that AG help me gain access to these important public documents, and am grateful for the time and attention given to my requests. I also greatly appreciate your front-and-back use of paper—thanks for conserving Texas resources!

Thank you,

One of the things that have been brought to light during the controversies surrounding the implementation of the Texas State Cable Franchising Bill, commonly referred to as SB5, is the adversarial position the Public is placed in when trying to negotiate where funds from the cable franchise fees should be spent. Who should be making those decisions? The City, the citizens of that city, State Government, Federal Government, neither or all of the above?

There is a conflict of interest because City Government wants to have full use of the funds in any way they see fit, and the public, who are the users/consumers of PEG (Public Access, Educational, Government), are left in a position of hoping and praying they will receive some of those benefits in the area of Public Access and the Educational channels, as opposed to funds being spent primarily on the Government part of PEG.

In trying to just get information from the City of San Antonio, we the public have received a tremendous amount of stonewalling when asking for:

1) How much in cable franchise fees have been received by the City since the state franchising law went into effect.

2) An accounting of how the funds have so far been spent and if they have not been spent, are they being held in a fund somewhere or have they evaporated into the general fund?

The information we have acquired over the past year and a half has been by reviewing weekly City Council agendas, reviewing ordinances and requests for approvals of funding on PEG related matters and checking newspaper articles. E-mails and phone calls we send to City staff mostly go unanswered. We’ve since stopped trying to ask for much information from them. The last time we were able to actually talk to City staff was in the meeting the City of San Antonio called on April 10, 2007, because of the flap over the AT&T U-Verse system test. Video of that meeting is posted on this website and will run on the Public Access Channel in San Antonio in May 2007. Austin ran the video the very next day. We are not able to do that here because the city runs the public access channel at this time and we can only show two shows per month.

However, whenever negative publicity appears in the newspapers we then do get calls, and really quick.

Since about September 2006, Chuck Robinson, a volunteer with the Texas Media Empowerment Project in San Antonio, has taken on the task of requesting documentation concerning the income and expenditures for PEG from the City of San Antonio. His request apparently raised questions as to whether the public had a right to request this information under the Texas Public Information Act. The City went to the State Attorney General’s office asking if they had to comply. Apparently, not even the State Attorney General’s office could force the City of San Antonio to produce the expenditure documents that were asked for, because they have yet to be provided. (Doesn't anyone outside the City ever audit any of these expenditures?)

When Chuck asked for a budget for expenditures he was asked, “What do you mean by a budget?” Instead of answers we get questions. The copies of the franchise fee checks (funds coming in) were provided, and we’re talking millions in checks being received, but the expense side has not. There is not enough transparency here.

The answer we get when we ask when will some of the franchise fee funds be used towards re-establishing a production facility (which we lost as well when the channel went black in January 2006) is a vague “ We will be considering that in the future.” We heard that response at the last meeting on April 10, 2007.

That same response was given in a meeting held on May 2006, at the Mexican Baptist Church in San Antonio, when about 30 producers showed up because the Public Access Channel had been off the air for 5 months by then. So how much longer is it going to be before we actually are able to begin to re-establish production facilities, like most other major cities have? We are the 7^th largest city in the U.S. for God’s sake!

Meanwhile the franchising fees are rolling in to the City without delay. Above are copies of the letters submitted to the City of San Antonio, requesting documentation of income/expenditures and the response from the Texas State Attorney General’s office concerning that request. Others in our community are attempting to get this information as well. All we can say is, what is going on and why all the cloak and daggers?

We don't want to really believe the noise we hear that AT&T is trying to dismantle PEG with the State Cable Franchise Laws they are lobbying for all across America. However actions always speak louder than words, and as the saying goes, the silence is deafening.

Welcome to our Blog

South Texas Media Access

And Media Access for All

This is our blog for this new organization born from the attack on Public Access Television in Texas. We have been fighting a battle to restore public access television after major changes happened due to a statewide cable franchising bill passed in the summer of 2005.

Check our blog to find out what the latest activity is and will be over the next months and years as we work to restore, revitalize and strengthen public access television and other forms of public media in Texas and coordinate with other organizations across the country. This issue is important to everyone across the U.S. San Antonio Texas was one of the 1st cities in the United States to be adversely affected by the statewide cable franchising bills. Other states have and/or will follow.

We are currently working to ensure that we do not los the public access channel in San Antonio, Texas, build a new community media center for the public to use and replace the production studio we lost in December 2005. We are also active in recruiting and training new producers who wish to produce media for television, internet and independent film, using community media resources. Join us in our effort to preserve community media in Texas!