Showing posts with label statewide_cable_franchsing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statewide_cable_franchsing. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
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.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Send Comments to the FCC for Community TV
Tell the FCC: |
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Article on Statewide Cable Franchising Effects
A legislative measure would end most regulation of new wired video service
by Charles N. Wheeler III
"When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled."
African proverb
In the legislative battle now under way between two heavyweight industries — the telephone companies and the cable television providers — what's at risk of getting trampled is the public interest.
The focus of the intense struggle is a telecom-backed measure that would strip franchising control from local governments and do away with most regulation for new entrants into the lucrative field of providing wired video service, long dominated by cable companies. As cable providers have started to offer telephone service, though, traditional phone companies have begun fighting back with plans for video over their landlines.
Led by AT&T, the phone companies argue that Illinois consumers are being gouged by the near-monopoly on video that cable companies like Comcast now enjoy, a competitive advantage owing in part to the need for would-be video providers to negotiate franchise agreements with every locality they wish to serve.
Under the pending legislation, providers no longer would have to deal with city officials. Instead, they could seek authorization from the Illinois Commerce Commission to provide video wherever they choose. Proponents say allowing the telecoms unfettered access to local markets will unleash competition that will drive down prices, attract more investment to Illinois and create thousands of new, high-tech jobs.
The cable industry responds, quite accurately, that nothing now prevents AT&T, Verizon or other telephone companies from competing for the video business under the existing rules by negotiating the same sort of franchise agreements that cable providers have with cities and villages across the state. The telecom proposal, the cable guys say, is merely a way for Ma Bell's offspring to avoid locally set service standards and to serve only those neighborhoods most likely to sign up for the most-expensive packages with lots of bells and whistles.
Fearful of being caught underfoot are the folks who run the community-based, public, educational and government channels, referred to as PEGs. They typically broadcast such fare as school board meetings, city council sessions, community arts events and educational programming.
Equally concerned are local government officials, who worry about losing control over the public rights of way in their communities and losing their ability to set service standards for the new video providers, including requiring that service be offered throughout the community.
Lawmakers face a tough challenge in sorting out fact from the public relations spin employed by the competing corporate interests. A key point to remember, though, is that neither the telecoms nor the cable companies should be expected to have the public interest at heart. After all, big corporations are supposed to make as much money as possible for shareholders. Looking out for the little guy — John Q. Public — is government's job, and it should be a top priority for elected officials.
To his credit, the telecom bill's chief sponsor, Rep. James Brosnahan, an Oak Lawn Democrat, already has removed some of the measure's more troublesome points and has been negotiating with the community groups and local officials in an effort to allay some of their other concerns.
To safeguard the public interest, however, lawmakers should focus on a couple of critical issues:
• Protecting the existing network of public access channels, including encouraging their future growth. Telecom allies profess their commitment to public access, citing a provision of the measure that earmarks 1 percent of receipts to underwrite PEGs. But public access stations in some communities enjoy higher levels of funding, which would be slashed by a statewide 1 percent cap.
Moreover, cable providers now foot the bill for hooking up the public access stations to their systems and carry the signal for free. In contrast, AT&T would like PEGs to buy the equipment needed to make their signal compatible with the phone company's technology, then pay AT&T for carrying it. And the phone company initially planned to provide a lower quality picture for PEGs — akin to a YouTube image in a computer window — rather than the full-screen TV picture viewers expect.
Advocates argue, correctly, that new entrants into video service should be required to play by the same public access rules as cable providers. That means no funding cuts, no freeze on future PEGs, no new carriage charges and no second-rate picture quality.
• Assuring that local governments maintain control over the use of public property by private business. Even if one accepts the premise that the state should issue video licenses to all comers, that's no reason to allow the telecoms to stick the refrigerator-size boxes needed for their technology where they see fit. Local regulation of equipment placement is important for public safety — think clear sight lines at intersections.
Local officials also generally have done a good job of requiring cable providers to offer service to everyone within the franchise area, thus avoiding so-called "cherry picking" in which only affluent, or demographically desirable, neighborhoods are covered. The telecoms say they want everyone for a customer, but mandating 100 percent build-out is bad business practice. At the least, though, lawmakers should set a goal of universal build-out, with reporting and enforcement provisions to stop technological redlining.
Similarly, the legislation sets out demanding standards for consumer protection, like resolving billing disputes, requiring prompt service calls and barring excessive fees, the familiar consumer headaches. All commendable, but equally necessary is oversight and enforcement, somewhere an aggrieved customer can complain, short of suing the provider, and get a fair shake. Perhaps the ICC's role could be expanded beyond mere pro forma license issuance; even better, the attorney general could be given the job.
The ultimate goal in the telecommunications war is to become a customer's sole provider of video, telephone and broadband Internet service. Lawmakers should watch out for the broader public interest along the way.
Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Illinois Issues, May 2007
Go to Illinois Issues blog at http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/
by Charles N. Wheeler III
"When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled."
African proverb
In the legislative battle now under way between two heavyweight industries — the telephone companies and the cable television providers — what's at risk of getting trampled is the public interest.
The focus of the intense struggle is a telecom-backed measure that would strip franchising control from local governments and do away with most regulation for new entrants into the lucrative field of providing wired video service, long dominated by cable companies. As cable providers have started to offer telephone service, though, traditional phone companies have begun fighting back with plans for video over their landlines.
Led by AT&T, the phone companies argue that Illinois consumers are being gouged by the near-monopoly on video that cable companies like Comcast now enjoy, a competitive advantage owing in part to the need for would-be video providers to negotiate franchise agreements with every locality they wish to serve.
Under the pending legislation, providers no longer would have to deal with city officials. Instead, they could seek authorization from the Illinois Commerce Commission to provide video wherever they choose. Proponents say allowing the telecoms unfettered access to local markets will unleash competition that will drive down prices, attract more investment to Illinois and create thousands of new, high-tech jobs.
The cable industry responds, quite accurately, that nothing now prevents AT&T, Verizon or other telephone companies from competing for the video business under the existing rules by negotiating the same sort of franchise agreements that cable providers have with cities and villages across the state. The telecom proposal, the cable guys say, is merely a way for Ma Bell's offspring to avoid locally set service standards and to serve only those neighborhoods most likely to sign up for the most-expensive packages with lots of bells and whistles.
Fearful of being caught underfoot are the folks who run the community-based, public, educational and government channels, referred to as PEGs. They typically broadcast such fare as school board meetings, city council sessions, community arts events and educational programming.
Equally concerned are local government officials, who worry about losing control over the public rights of way in their communities and losing their ability to set service standards for the new video providers, including requiring that service be offered throughout the community.
Lawmakers face a tough challenge in sorting out fact from the public relations spin employed by the competing corporate interests. A key point to remember, though, is that neither the telecoms nor the cable companies should be expected to have the public interest at heart. After all, big corporations are supposed to make as much money as possible for shareholders. Looking out for the little guy — John Q. Public — is government's job, and it should be a top priority for elected officials.
To his credit, the telecom bill's chief sponsor, Rep. James Brosnahan, an Oak Lawn Democrat, already has removed some of the measure's more troublesome points and has been negotiating with the community groups and local officials in an effort to allay some of their other concerns.
To safeguard the public interest, however, lawmakers should focus on a couple of critical issues:
• Protecting the existing network of public access channels, including encouraging their future growth. Telecom allies profess their commitment to public access, citing a provision of the measure that earmarks 1 percent of receipts to underwrite PEGs. But public access stations in some communities enjoy higher levels of funding, which would be slashed by a statewide 1 percent cap.
Moreover, cable providers now foot the bill for hooking up the public access stations to their systems and carry the signal for free. In contrast, AT&T would like PEGs to buy the equipment needed to make their signal compatible with the phone company's technology, then pay AT&T for carrying it. And the phone company initially planned to provide a lower quality picture for PEGs — akin to a YouTube image in a computer window — rather than the full-screen TV picture viewers expect.
Advocates argue, correctly, that new entrants into video service should be required to play by the same public access rules as cable providers. That means no funding cuts, no freeze on future PEGs, no new carriage charges and no second-rate picture quality.
• Assuring that local governments maintain control over the use of public property by private business. Even if one accepts the premise that the state should issue video licenses to all comers, that's no reason to allow the telecoms to stick the refrigerator-size boxes needed for their technology where they see fit. Local regulation of equipment placement is important for public safety — think clear sight lines at intersections.
Local officials also generally have done a good job of requiring cable providers to offer service to everyone within the franchise area, thus avoiding so-called "cherry picking" in which only affluent, or demographically desirable, neighborhoods are covered. The telecoms say they want everyone for a customer, but mandating 100 percent build-out is bad business practice. At the least, though, lawmakers should set a goal of universal build-out, with reporting and enforcement provisions to stop technological redlining.
Similarly, the legislation sets out demanding standards for consumer protection, like resolving billing disputes, requiring prompt service calls and barring excessive fees, the familiar consumer headaches. All commendable, but equally necessary is oversight and enforcement, somewhere an aggrieved customer can complain, short of suing the provider, and get a fair shake. Perhaps the ICC's role could be expanded beyond mere pro forma license issuance; even better, the attorney general could be given the job.
The ultimate goal in the telecommunications war is to become a customer's sole provider of video, telephone and broadband Internet service. Lawmakers should watch out for the broader public interest along the way.
Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Illinois Issues, May 2007
Go to Illinois Issues blog at http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 11, 2007
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
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.
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) City of
Regards,
**********************************************************************************
Communications and Public Affairs
City of
- 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.
***********************************************************
Attorney General’s Office
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Public Access Producers in
A threatening item is on the Agenda for the San Antonio City Council meeting on April 5, 2007. Below is a copy of the agenda item. Of note is the part of Alternatives. This request for action basically states that if the AT&T U-Verse test fails, that AT&T should not be required to carry the Public Access, Governmental, or Educational channels (PEG for short), And THAT THE OTHER CABLE COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO AS WELL, which would kill public access. Is this how AT&T is trying to get out of having to carry the public access channels? Inquiring minds want to know. What we have found out about how U-Verse really works can be reviewed in these links and in this Wall Street Journal Article from February 2007.
http://saveaccess.org/sites/saveaccess.org/files/HowYouAreDelivered.pdf
| CITY OF | Agenda Item # 23 |
| DEPARTMENT: Finance | DEPARTMENT HEAD: Ben Gorzell |
|
| |
| COUNCIL DISTRICT(S) IMPACTED: | |
| SUBJECT: | |
| SUMMARY: This ordinance authorizes an agreement with AT&T Texas to conduct first office application "FOA" for the purposes of AT&T to carry the City's Public, Education and Government (PEG) programming on its U-Verse TV Service. | ||||||||
| BACKGROUND INFORMATION: AT&T and the City of | ||||||||
| ISSUE: In the Summer of 2006, AT&T Texas began testing the delivery of IPTV. The City has the right to request that its community (PEG) channels be carried on its system. Testing is required because the deliverly of service is different than that of our current cable operators. The City and AT&T have identified a single point of demarcation to simplify and reduce the cost of implementation. | ||||||||
| ALTERNATIVES: What is the hell that suppose to mean?????????????????? That they can kill PEG??????????(edited in) | ||||||||
| FISCAL IMPACT: | ||||||||
| RECOMMENDATION: | ||||||||
| ATTACHMENT(S):
| ||||||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)