Federal Legislation threatens public access television

[Minnesotan]

Say goodbye to your kids' games and graduations as well as your opportunity to have a voice...

Anybody else get their first taste of TV at a public access station?

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/14774987.htm

Proposed law could add cable choices but doom local programs
Congress aims to cut cable TV bills
BY MEGGEN LINDSAY and JASON HOPPIN
Pioneer Press

Watching your kids' sports games on television and tuning in to your local city council meeting could become a practice of the past.

Twin Cities leaders warn that legislation wending through Congress guts funding for public access television and undermines local control of the most parochial of news outlets.

The House of Representatives passed a version of the bill late Thursday, and the Senate could vote on a similar provision later this month. The biggest telecommunications legislation in a decade, the proposal would open the way for telephone companies to more easily enter the subscription television market.

If it is signed into federal law, metro cable commissions say they no longer would receive enough money from cable television providers to deliver local programming and public access shows.

Underpinning the controversy is the concept of public access TV as a right, as part of the promise of cable television, particularly for disenfranchised and underrepresented populations.

"This (legislation) would do great harm to local communities and to the very concept of community," Eagan spokesman Tom Garrison said. "The impact especially would be felt in Minnesota, which has a prolific history of public-access television."

Local officials have written council resolutions and launched letter-writing campaigns to area lawmakers. Aimed at spurring competition, the legislation would create a national system of video franchises in an effort to give consumers more choices among cable TV providers.

Nontraditional cable pro-viders — such as telephone companies — are eager to crack the cable business through broadband services, and local cable franchises usually compete only with satellite cable providers such as the Dish Network.

But Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, who heads the House telecommunications subcommittee, estimated that people could save $30 to $40 each month if given a choice of video services. Many Democrats, however, have said the measure did too little to ensure broadband services would be extended to lower-income and rural areas.

Opponents of the proposal are unhappy because national franchises could void the local cable contracts through which public, educational and government programming is produced, according to community cable organizations. Under those contracts, local commissions negotiate who gets cable, funding for public programming and how a cable fiber network is deployed.

Local cable commissions also worry about what they have labeled the "cherry-picking" factor, by which cable operators could compete to serve wealthy neighborhoods and skip over poorer areas.

"My prediction is that the bills are so bad for many Twin Cities operations that the operations will just cease in many of those communities," said Mike Wassenaar, executive director of the St. Paul Neighborhood Network.

SERVING NICHE AUDIENCES

Beyond government meetings and public safety announcements, local community channels also broadcast religious and political shows and community events such as graduations, proms and parades. They also produce programs for underrepresented segments of the population. Minneapolis, for instance, broadcasts seven weekly shows in the Somali language. Pramod Mathur, of Eagan, has broadcast a South Asian show, Chai City, as a hobby for five years on three public-access stations. Mathur and his wife produce 13 episodes each year as an Indian news magazine, featuring local chefs, artists and performers.

They have followed the federal debate with apprehension. "We've been able to do this show because there was this outlet and opportunity," he said. "We couldn't do this on a network.

"(These channels) provide an opportunity for the underserved. To me, it's not about entertainment as much as it is about democracy." Broadcasts like the Mathurses' are typically funded through fees negotiated with a cable operator. In St. Paul, for instance, the city gets 5 percent of Comcast's gross cable TV revenues and roughly $1 million in additional so-called PEG (public, educational and governmental) fees and other benefits.

It's those PEG dollars that will be radically cut in the metro area, where local cable commissions had negotiated favorable agreements with the cable companies. For some other cities across the country, the new funding formula would be a boon, however.

Wassenaar predicted an annual drop in St. Paul from $1 million to $361,000 and said the impact could reverberate even more in the suburbs, where cable revenue is not as high.

The Burnsville Eagan Telecommunications Commission said it's looking at losing two-thirds of its funding, from $648,000 to $225,000.

The North Suburban Access Corp. — which represents 10 member cities, including Roseville, Mounds View and Shoreview — is facing a revenue loss of 80 percent, or nearly $1 million annually.

The nonprofit organization's volunteer coordinator, Lori Pulkrabek, said there are about 350 people in the north suburbs producing their own shows or helping on another.

"The cuts being discussed would dramatically change who we are and what we are able to do. We are the local, local outlet."

LOCAL CONTROL

For those involved in community programming, the concern revolves around local control.

Under the current bills, the Federal Communications Commission would administer national franchises, which means local commissions could lose the ability to negotiate their contract agreements. Community cable producers believe customer complaints would be taken out of local hands.

"Currently if there's an issue, people just come to our group to get whatever resolved. Whereas, under the proposal now, citizens would have to go before the FCC, which is just ridiculous," Pulkrabek said.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce spokesman Terry Lane said complaints would still be handled through local authorities, however.

Although St. Paul's franchise agreement with Comcast runs through 2013, observers believe the contract would be void once competition is introduced to the St. Paul market if the legislation became law.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Tex., wrote the House version of the bill. The Senate will consider similar legislation sponsored by Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Lane defended the bill, saying that having to negotiate individual service contracts across the nation is a barrier to competition.

"The issue was the actual negotiations themselves," Lane said. "We think there's as many as 34,000 franchises across the country, and that's an enormous negotiating task" for the cable companies. Wassenaar dismisses that criticism, saying the ability to sit down with a cable provider benefits communities.

So why is the government doing it?

"The first thing that we're talking about on this is cheaper cable TV," Lane said. "That is essentially what the motivator is, the carrot."

Meggen Lindsay can be reached at mlindsay@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5260.

Jason Hoppin can be reached at jhoppin@pioneerpress.com or 651-292-1892.

[patssle]

naw, we don't need local community programming. who cares about that. we need more reality shows. right?

Anybody else get their first taste of TV at a public access station?

most certainly. got to direct live shows and produce newscasts in high school at my school district's station then all the stuff I do here in college that gets put on the station.

[Minnesotan]

naw, we don't need local community programming. who cares about that. we need more reality shows. right?



most certainly. got to direct live shows and produce newscasts in high school at my school district's station then all the stuff I do here in college that gets put on the station.

Please contact your U.S. Senators. This has already passed the House...

[pre-set]

OK, aside from the "I got my first experience doing cable access" warm fuzzies, how many of you actually WATCH it on a regular basis? Face it - by and large - with a FEW notable exceptions - PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE TV SHOWS JUST PLAIN SUCK!

Why do you think the phrase "it looks too cable access" is a insult to those of us in the commercial TV realm?

Seriously - look at the oddball stuff on cable access: Wiccan talk shows, uber-rightwing pontificants, "documentaries" on some kids Yougiho card collection............ I could go on. All of them shot equally bad with abyismal production values and bad on air talent.

I'm not saying that this stuff doesn't/shouldn't have a forum, but why does it have to be on cable?

Why not the 'net?

[patssle]

Why not the 'net?

youtube.com ;)

[Dink]

Personally, I don't have a problem with this. If I understand correctly, it's the cable companies themselves paying for these "programs" that very few people watch. Why should these cable access people get a free ride?

The guy in the article who likened cable access to democracy is an idiot. The government telling a company how it should spend its income is not democracy. Democracy does not mean that every freak out there should automatically get free time to promote his agenda. If you want to put your message on television, do it like any legitimate organization or business: raise the money for it yourself. Democracy only means that nobody's voice is suppressed; it doesn't mean everybody gets free transmission.

And as far as getting a start in television at cable access goes, that seems to be overblown as well. While there are exceptions, cable access operations tend to be run badly and poorly equipped despite the free ride from cable companies. I've known a number of people who got their "start" in cable access, and (with a few exceptions) they generally come into commercial television somewhat clueless and have to be trained or retrained. I'm not convinced that cable access really prepares you for any kind of job in real television in most cases. In fact, training cable access people can be a pain in the ass, because worse than starting from zero is having to get rid of bad habits and misconceptions already learned in unprofessional surroundings.

You want to save your public access shows? Then raise the money to keep them on the air yourself.

[patssle]

what about schools? my school broadcasts on a public access station. the city owns it, the cable provider pays them, the city lets us manage it, and they give us a portion of the money.

so if that money disappears, maybe we can't fund the station. and im sure we arn't the only school who broadcasts on public access.

and its what the department lives on. its how we learn, by creating stuff to put on the station. we have our very own live newscasts that few schools in the country do (a quality newscast). defeats the purpose to do news if nobody can watch it.

[Minnesotan]

Cable companies are paying the cities so they can use their utility poles and boxes.

So the only way to get your voice out is if you have a lot of money?

[(Sin)ical]

I wouldn't expect this to pass. I realize the private cable companies have never really been happy with the right-to-carry or must-carry laws, but it's a responsibility to the public. The ratings of public television or NPR are not important. What is important is the availability. I agree that we should all contact our Senators, and fight to prevent this bill from passing. If this bill passes, then I support a boycott of cable. Anyone working in television should care about this, it is your way of life and more importantly your paycheck. Public television is for anyone who cannot afford cable, and if one can't afford cable it's unlikely they are affording a computer and internet connection.

[Dink]

defeats the purpose to do news if nobody can watch it.

Nobody can watch it on the Internet?

[ewink]

Sin - Isn't public access on cable? So if you can't afford cable, you can't get public access?

From what I understand we're not talking about PBS or NPR, but the public access cable channel that everyone can get a show on. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Personally, I think this is out of the jursidiction of the federal government, but when has that stopped them before?

[Dink]

defeats the purpose to do news if nobody can watch it.

By the way, what is the purpose of high schoolers doing news? Why does a school need public access television to fulfill its mission of educating students?

[Minnesotan]

ewink: You are correct, it is for public access, not PBS. It's the locally produced shows like government TV, high school graduations, high school choir or band concerts, or area sports.

Actually, for the public access in my area, you do not have to subscribe to cable to receive it. Anybody living in the area can have Comcast come out run a line to receive the four channels at no charge.

As far as high school kids doing news...It's a way to learn. It's fun and educational for kids. I suppose it could count as some English credit or for arts. I think that would be another thing we'd lose, a way for kids to learn how to do something fun that keeps them out of trouble.

[patssle]

By the way, what is the purpose of high schoolers doing news? Why does a school need public access television to fulfill its mission of educating students?

to learn? if it wasn't for my RTV class in high school, I never would of pursued that degree in college.

[Terry E. Toller]

It's too bad. There are many groups and individuals who have a voice on public access. I had a monthly program on access for a year and called it 'Sacramento in Crisis". My program exposed a corrupt mayor who lied to the public about the city budget, a crooked sheriff who pulled strings to get charges dismissed for raceist criminals who donated large amounts of money to his campaign fund and he issued ILLEGAL gun permits to contributors with FELONY records!!! The mainstream media would not report these stories because they were afraid that if they did, they would no longer have access to the sheriff's department and city hall. The sheriff threatened me with a 'crininal investigation' for reporting his illegal activities. HA! and the mayor passed a rule that 'freelance journalists could NOT cover city hall". Took him to court on a petition for a writ of mandate and WON! Haven't been back since, it was just the principal of the thing... :}

[Dink]

to learn? if it wasn't for my RTV class in high school, I never would of pursued that degree in college.

You never "would of"?

The guy before you tried to suggest studying television production is some kind of English class. Obviously it doesn't work.

I normally wouldn't comment on grammar on a message board, but in this case it seems to me that the time spent playing television might be better spent mastering the core subjects instead. While school can be fun, fun is not the primary purpose of school. The purpose is to learn. If you aren't learning well enough that you avoid such a basic grammar error, I can't help but think these other "fun" activities have gotten in the way of the actual education.

I still fail to see how high school television programs contribute to the core mission of high schools.

[Capitol Beat]

Personally, I don't have a problem with this. If I understand correctly, it's the cable companies themselves paying for these "programs" that very few people watch. Why should these cable access people get a free ride?

The reason cable companies have to pay cities and counties for this service is because they use city or county infrastructure to distribute their product by placing cable lines along taxpayers roads and atop taxpayer powerlines.

This money isn't being wasted on local public access television stations. This money helps every citizen who feels that there is a message that isn't being expressed in the mainstream media. Sure these programs and ideas can go to the web, and they have done just that. But I think it is important to provide a media outlet to these small, poor, and fringe groups who's opinions might only appeal to a poor minority because they cant afford increasingly expensive technology.

As television news becomes more and more business oriented and profit centric we should embrace cheap venues like public access television and the web as an alternative to the corporate propaganda being spread as journalistic news content. This industry is heading down a road where sooner or later our GM's are going to be deciding what is and isn't news and unless you own a T.V. station, cable outlet, or newspaper then I guess your opinions just don't matter as much as their's.

I also volunteer for our local Public Access by helping to broadcast our City Council Meetings every tuesday night.

[Minnesotan]

You can teach students how to read and write, how to use proper grammar and use it as a way of public speaking. We had pottery, photography, and painting classes when I was in high school. What's the educational purpose of those classes, if tv is not educational?

[Dink]

You can teach students how to read and write, how to use proper grammar and use it as a way of public speaking.

Yeah, baloney. I point to the previous example as evidence of said baloney. Television news does NOT emphasize or strengthen the proper use of the language, as a day or two reading over scripts in any newsroom easily demonstrates.

We had pottery, photography, and painting classes when I was in high school. What's the educational purpose of those classes, if tv is not educational?

We're not talking about pottery, photography or painting. We're talking about an elective that, unlike those endeavors, requires outside assistance to make it happen. It's the outside assistance that is at issue here, and bringing up these other crafts still fails to show how a television program is sufficiently necessary to the goal of educating students that it justifies artificially high cable rates for consumers. You still haven't told me why television programs are so important.

The reason cable companies have to pay cities and counties for this service is because they use city or county infrastructure to distribute their product by placing cable lines along taxpayers roads and atop taxpayer powerlines.

Okay, so the cable companies pay rent for the right of way. It seems to me that if the legislative and market environment is such that the rent the cable companies are paying is insufficient to subsidize handouts to these cable access freeloaders, and if the cities and counties wish to continue funding these programs, then these cities and counties need to figure out how to fund them on their own. These are NOT essential services we're talking about. It is not every citizen's personal right to have access to television bandwidth.

You people come across like a bunch of spoiled brats. TANSTAAFL. Come to terms with it.

[backfocus5]

By the way, what is the purpose of high schoolers doing news? Why does a school need public access television to fulfill its mission of educating students?

To audition for Naked News.com!

[Icarus112277]

It should be part of an FCC deal, where broadcasters/ transmitter users have to pick up a reasonable amount of public access charges as a general service to the public.

I don't think it matters whether or not I watch (altho I did for a while) it, so long as it there for the community to utilize if they choose.

[(Sin)ical]

Oops, I did miss the point on this one. I agree with pre-set. I agree with Icarus 112277. I only payed attention to public access cable whenever my college work was on there. I also enjoyed the college production of Hurly Bear network...the original half-baked cooking show with Matt Fry. I'll admit I have watched the high school football games whenever I couldn't find anything else. I even paused occasionally for some tele-church. I don't really watch it, but I don't really want it taken away either. Hey Icarus...I flew on an airline named Icarus. I thought it was the worst name to have on the side of the plane, and I kept thinking we might get to close to the sun.

[editor_dude]

the bigger issue is use of right of way. Local governments should be able to control there right of ways. Moneies charged to utilites pays for repair and maitenace of infastructure that is damaged when utilites cross roads and or dranige structures in placeing there systems.

The new players don't want to pay right of way fees.

Should the federal government be allowed to tell a state/locale who can use there rights of way?

[The Daywood]

As "convergance" (ahh that dreaded term) continues to happen, the 'net becomes more and more important. That is why UNT is working to stream NTTV (the campus station). But because of bandwith and the capabilities of computers, for many of our consumers, watching a stream is not feasible nor pleasant.

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

We have argued on this board about media consolidation and the cutting out of the "local voice". Could the internet replace the service provided by the public access/city cable? One might argue that they are one in the same now as convergance continues to happen. I believe that public access is a great forum for those who can't access "main-stream media". There are some odd programs, to you, but to those who are producing them, they have something to say, or a something they believe in doing. Who am I to say in this Free Speech society that their voice counts for less because they believe in a point of view that is polar opposite from mine, or because their believe is "crazy" by my standards. Could they go to the internet. Well that's a tricky one. Is the city providing that service, or are they going to have to shell out bucks to have their voice heard. Why should money matter to information?

I have to agree with many on this board who say Public Access/City Cable is a great training ground. Are there some that is complete shlock? Absolutely! If there were a few of us who took some of our time to help some of these people would their product would improve tremendously? Absolutely! If you believe in what you are doing, then the paycheck shouldn't be important. I sometimes look at it as a professional basketball player going down to the playground for a pick-up game. Have I worked on shoots where we had 20 cameras, all fiber, sat-linked and half the crew was "out of towners" flown in? Yep, but I only got to carry cable starting out. The next night I'm handheld cam for a minor league hockey game with 4 cameras, camplexed, straight to tape, and a high schooler on game cam. I made about 5 times as much being a utility as I did on handheld, but I had a lot more fun doing the city cable shoot.

I think it is also important to distinguish between some of the public access programs and those that are produced by the city. Some shows are nothing more than someone going to Wal-Mart and buying the cheapest camera they can find, setting it up and shooting. Some is actually pretty good. There are some poorly managed city operations (and some might argue "poorly managed" isn't exclusive to cable access), and some that are stellar. Irving Community Television (north of Dallas) turns out some amazing stuff and some so-so stuff and some crap, and believe it or not they actually have people who watch. HS sports, Municipal sports, Hyper-local news (what to do with the new trash bins, how the new library regulations work, debates for city council), Arts shows....All this is funded officially by the cable companies as laid out in the franchise agreement, but really it is the consumer of cable who gets the passed along cost. Can dish/satellite do it cheaper? Well yeah, because they don't have to pay for right-of-way use.

Dink, I'm sorry but having spent time in the classroom at a HS level, schools are fighting a losing battle for the attention and dedication of students today. I don't want to start that societial discussion, but suffice it to say schools are scrambling for outlets that allow students to be creative and stay interested. School pride is on the wane. If you can put together a news program showing students in a positive light, or can show the school board meeting where the money for the schools gets divied up, I believe it is a good thing. One of the biggest misconceptions is that school is about learning what is in the book. I tend to believe school is about learning HOW to think. The teamwork, writing skills, problem solving, and myriad of other processes that go into producing a show are the practical application of what is being taught in the "core" classes. How many times did you think in algebra, "When am I ever going to use this?" Now how many times have you thought, "OK I have 2 batteries that last about 60 minutes each, but if I use my camera light I'll only get 45 minutes, and I need to get back to the station by 4:30 so I'll have time to cut a :30 VO for the 5 o' clock show." We use the practical application everyday.

We don't all get to be doctors, and yet we take biology. We aren't all going to be athletes, yet they made us take PE. It is about taking advantage of the opportunities presented to students. If a school district has the opportunity to give students a chance to see that there is more to it than sticking a tape in a camera, I'm all for it. If there is the opportunity for an outside influence to help schools, I'm all for it. Hospitals (candy stripers), Police/Fire Departments (Explorer programs), Military (ROTC), Business (Mentor programs) and many others have outlets for students to learn about careers and the practical application of what is taught in the classroom. Why should the government be quashing an outlet for those who want to be a part of their school, yet can't play an instrument or throw a ball?

Ending public access/city cable/educational access would go a long way to taking the voice away from the "little guy", to taking away a training ground for new "television people" and a valuable resource for our educational system.

[Tippster]

the bigger issue is use of right of way. Local governments should be able to control there right of ways. Moneies charged to utilites pays for repair and maitenace of infastructure that is damaged when utilites cross roads and or dranige structures in placeing there systems.

The new players don't want to pay right of way fees.

Should the federal government be allowed to tell a state/locale who can use there rights of way?That's not the issue here, is it? We're talking about the Cable Company no longer giving time/bandwidth/production space to public access. We are NOT talking about them not paying their municipal fees for pole rental and maintenance.

I honestly have never watched Public Access cable, and I helped produce content for it in College (Montgomery County, MD.) I do agree with Dink that there is no "Inherent Right to be Heard." You got something to say? Stand in front of city hall and shout your lungs out. Oh, they'll probably arrest you for disturbing the peace....

[Dink]

The new players don't want to pay right of way fees.


If you're talking about telephone companies, they're already paying right of way fees. Are you suggesting that they should be charged twice and made to pay for infrastructure they're not using? Should they be paying for the telephone lines that are already in place AND the cable equipment that isn't part of their service?

Taking the article at face value, the big issue here for me is that the bill seems to pit cable access freeloaders against overcharged cable subscribers. If the bill passes, cable bills are supposed to go down as subscribers pay only for the channels they want. Any way I look at it, that's a losing battle for the freeloaders. Why should millions of Americans have to pay 20% to 50% higher cable bills than necessary just so you can play television?

That's why I asked about the necessity of high school television programs. Most school systems are funded through a combination of property taxes and other state revenue. There's already a funding system in place for school programs. If a program is so expensive or so complicated that it requires the school to go outside its normal funding channels to bankroll it, the school damned well better be able to justify the program's value. So far, I've seen no argument that supports the necessity or value of high school kids having a television playground.

Hell, I already support schools that none of my family will ever attend through my taxes; why the hell would I want to throw more money at them by paying higher cable fees?

I also have a problem with the idea that my cable fees are funding these "alternative voices." If Indian immigrants want a cooking show, they can pay for it themselves. Why should I have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for the religious garbage that runs so often? If there's an "alternative voice" I want to hear, I'll pay for that. If the rest of these "alternative voices" actually have people who want to hear them, they shouldn't have much trouble finding people who will fund them.

The more you people argue against it, the better this bill sounds. Dump the freeloaders and let them pay their own way.

[The Daywood]

Hell, I already support schools that none of my family will ever attend through my taxes; why the hell would I want to throw more money at them by paying higher cable fees?

So by extension, since I never get sick, I sure as heck don't want to throw money at the community hospital. Let the poor suffer....I don't know them anyway.

[Dink]

School pride is on the wane.

Really? Then why the alleged demand for high school football games on cable access? It seems to me that if school pride were waning, interest in the schools' sports programs would wane also. Yet you have people in this same thread whining that viewers will suffer because they won't get their high school football games.

I don't believe that education is any worse off than it ever has been. People ALWAYS think that "the good old days" are gone. Old men in the fifties lamented the decline of society as much as they do today. People today think that crime is worse than it was in the 70s, when FBI statistics clearly show otherwise. There's always this pessimism about the present, yet objective data to support it usually doesn't exist.

You say that high school is supposed to be about learning how to think. I disagree, and I think that's a lame copout to excuse kids from the difficulty of rote learning. It's an easy way to let them off the hook, so that if test scores go down they can be excused by stating that remembering facts isn't as important as knowing how to think. If they don't remember the damned facts, they don't have the basic information they need to build any kind of thought. For example, you have to remember something about history before you can decide what to think about it.

High school is about learning the basic facts needed to be productive in society. College is where you learn to take those facts and put them together in your own ways. Kids can and should be encouraged to think for themselves, but more important than that at the public school level is to fill their heads with information. The most efficient way to do that is through rote learning.

The idea that a high school television program somehow helps in this process is baloney also. You're arguing for the magic bullet. Rote learning is supposed to be hard, so people are always looking for some effortless way to absorb the same information without actually studying. "Let's give them a fun activity that will teach them without actually making them work for it." Yeah, that works at some level, perhaps when kids are playing word games in elementary school. But to try to argue that a television station will teach algebra or English is ridiculous. The people who learn this stuff aren't going to learn it by playing television. They're going to learn it by studying and working for it.

As I've already said, school can be fun and should be fun whenever possible. Part of making school fun is to mix in electives and extracurricular activities. But those are electives and extracurricular activities. Their very names indicate that they are not vital to the primary mission. If educators have to go beyond their normal funding channels to pay for these things, then they can't whine when the funding dries up if they can't make a better case for funding the programs.

[Dink]

So by extension, since I never get sick, I sure as heck don't want to throw money at the community hospital. Let the poor suffer....I don't know them anyway.

So now you're trying to argue that not having access to television is the same as not having access to healthcare?

Oh my god! I'm gonna die if I don't get an edit deck transplant! Somebody please help! I'm comin' to join you Elizabeth!

Christ, you people have your priorities mixed up.

[12cammo]

www.tucson12.tv

[Minnesotan]

The bill also has in it that companies like Google or Myspace could be charged by the ISPs.

Do people really think their cable/internet bill will go down because of this? All it will do is add another stream of revenue to the companies. They don't care about you, they know you'll pay $100 a month for cable and internet or telephone and internet, so why would they lower it?

[Grip]

You people come across like a bunch of spoiled brats

First you get all uppity with your grammar police act

And if anyone is acting like a spoiled brat it's you

You want to cry about expensive cable, blame ESPN(Disney) don't blame public access.

If you want to put your message on television, do it like any legitimate organization or business: raise the money for it yourself. Democracy only means that nobody's voice is suppressed; it doesn't mean everybody gets free transmission.

Are you not contradicting yourself. Those without means to pay, still have a legitimate voice. Granted there are conditions, and restrictions, but to debate the validity of public access is an act of suppression, and an attack on Democracy.

I will agree that there is a lot of useless public access crap that airs, but across the country it plays an important role in a lot of communities. There are elderly that can't make it to the friday night football game or school play, these people have paid their dues to society, now you want to make them pay more so they can watch their grandchildren in the big game or school play.

And speaking of school,
By the way, what is the purpose of high schoolers doing news? Why does a school need public access television to fulfill its mission of educating students?

It's not all about "news", but if you have not caught on by now education is about information. Grasp that for a second....... And how do you inform? I don't know, I am going to guess communication.

Some schools utilize it better than others, but it is a valuable tool for the students, and the community. Even if it was just used as a venue for public speaking, it is still a benefit. The experience for the student is much more than just a "TV" job.

My Mother was a Teacher, and for fifteen years her class put out a show, covered the ball games, school plays etc. She couldnt even count the number of times someone came up to her while she was out buying grocerys or shopping and thanked her for the value of the show, and how nice it was for the community.

And then you get in to the political world, where it is a place for an open forum of ideas and information. How is it a Democracy, when only the people who can pay should have a voice?
It is still capitalism, because it is based on a free market, public access will always be a sub channel.

And back to the real suppresion, what are the real numbers here, high cable costs have a lot more to do with ESPN and their nondisclosure agreement, than public access.

[The Daywood]

So now you're trying to argue that not having access to television is the same as not having access to healthcare?
Oh my god! I'm gonna die if I don't get an edit deck transplant! Somebody please help! I'm comin' to join you Elizabeth!
Christ, you people have your priorities mixed up.
Wow, I thought I had the market cornered on dramatics.....(I guess the dripping sarcasm and bulge in my cheek was lost in translation):rolleyes:

************************************************** **
Dink, I don't think that television should be or ever will be a "core class", nor do I think that we should throw out the Readin', 'Ritin', and 'Rithmatic...Oh and History and Science (they just don't have the same Ring)....

I am coming from a perspective of teaching in a public high school for 4 years. Yeah Yeah Socrates had that quote about the future of civilization being doomed as well...I'm not there, but I have seen a huge difference in the average student in the last few years. My parents retired from teaching after 36 years each, and talked about it...Should there be rote facts learned? Absoultely...Everyone needs to know that Pearl Harbor happened in Hawaii on December 7th 1941 or that when you mix bleach and chlorine you might die....There are facts a society should hold in common. What I also think is that there are different ways for different people to learn. You may have been great at sitting in a lecture and taking notes, but for a kid who has ADD, that is absoulte torture. In the past they make bad grades and end up as your mechanic because they were labeled a "bad student". Today by varying your teaching style, students become engaged and actually respond. Unless you have seen the light come on in a kid's eye it is hard to explain.

I think we are getting away from the arguement though...The end of Public Access/Educational Access/City Cable is only a by-product of this bill. There are Internet issues as well as telecom issues that are bring up interesting questions as well...Freeloading isn't really what PA/EA/CC is about. It is about the cable companies paying for the use of an infrastructure. It was determined long ago that the way they pay for that is through franchise agreements with municipalities. Not only are they paying for the installation, but for the upkeep (replacement of telephone poles, etc.) The agreements could have been structured in any way. Some smaller communities just fold that money into their general budget, and some larger cities do the same thing. You can argue all you want about Freeloading and paying for services you don't use, but when it comes down to it, there should be payment for the infrastucture in some way or else the cable companies become the real freeloaders.

[Dink]

... to debate the validity of public access is an act of suppression, and an attack on Democracy.

No it isn't. Once again, democracy does not mean that everyone gets a free, prepaid pulpit. Nobody is suppressing these "alternative voices." Even if they no longer have access to television, they have not been suppressed. They can still print materials to distribute. They can still use the Internet. Gee, noticed anyone blogging lately? They can even still get television time. They'll just have to quit being freeloaders and pay for it.

If what they have to say has value, money will come along for it. The problem with these "alternative voices" is that these people think they have the great ideas that will lead humanity to salvation. Then, when nobody will listen to them, they can't face the realization that their messages lack value. Instead, it's easier to think of themselves as victims being "suppressed" by government, or corporations, or "the system." They put on their tinfoil hats and proclaim that they still have the answer to all society's woes, if only the military industrial complex or Illuminati or black UN helicopters would let them reach the masses.

This is not some conspiracy to suppress democracy. If you understand what democracy is, then you realize this has nothing to do with democracy at all. This is more about people getting a free ride they don't necessarily deserve and being upset that it may be coming to an end. Just because you had it in the past doesn't mean it's your right to have it.

[Grip]

It is called evolution, yeah our forfathers did not say anything about public access TV, but they did see a value in having an open forum for the voice of the people. That has evolved.

So who is really wearing the tin-foil hat here? You seem really paranoid about people having access.....

And how much do you think it costs to have public access TV.....
dude, I think you made your tin foil hat with the shiny foil on the inside.

[Dink]

It is called evolution, yeah our forfathers did not say anything about public access TV, but they did see a value in having an open forum for the voice of the people. That has evolved.

They saw value in open forum, and they crafted the law of the land to prevent government from suppressing gatherings of people to speak and hear. They saw value in the right to speak, and to print, and enshrined that value in Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. They guaranteed that we can speak, gather, print, and protest, if we have the means to do so.

What they did NOT do is guarantee that every flake with a message get a printing press. That would be the appropriate analogy here, since that was the technology available at the time. If the Founding Fathers really considered free and universal access to media to dessiminate one's viewpoints to be as essential as you're trying to argue, they would have crafted the law of the land to give everyone free access to printing equipment and supplies. They would have told newspapers that they HAD to publish every letter that was sent their way or help the pamphleteers print their pamphlets.

Since they did NOT do that, it seems pretty clear that they didn't intend Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly to mean "free pulpit to all who wish to preach." Just as freaks and weirdos, and even those with legitimate viewpoints, had no guaranteed right to be published by newspapers in 1789, the freeloaders whining about public access television today have no inherent Constitutional right to free television. Just like in 1789, when pamphleteers who couldn't get published in the mainstream bought their own printing presses and published their own material that way, public access television programs are free to bankroll their own productions.

[patssle]

If the Founding Fathers really considered free and universal access to media to dessiminate one's viewpoints to be as essential as you're trying to argue...

No entry found for dessiminate.
Did you mean disseminate?

but anyways....I agree with

Today by varying your teaching style, students become engaged and actually respond. Unless you have seen the light come on in a kid's eye it is hard to explain.

[nk49]

I've had enough. I've been reading this thread as it has progressed and I can't believe what I'm hearing. You know what guys, your're absolutely right. The only things kids need to know when they leave school is how to memorize stuff! That's exactly what I want, a bunch of idiots who know how to study for a test!

I remember the "book smart" kids. Spent all their time studying, reading, memorizing. Sure the got straight A's, but in the real world where you have to problem solve and handle unplanned situations and emergencies, they're as dumb as a post.

I'm have no patience for the "no child left behind" crowd. "Hey, since we're falling behind the rest of the world in education, let's just set our test standards higher, get rid of art, PE, music and anything else that can't be measured with a number and let someone else deal with how to make it work!"

I'd rather work with a group of creative, talented and well rounded people than some clown that only knows how to repeat back what they read in a book.

[Tippster]

... Rote learning is supposed to be hard, so people are always looking for some effortless way to absorb the same information without actually studying. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg

[nk49]

Also, I got my start in Public Access. When I was in high school, some friends of mine started a show because they were tired of what they were seeing on public access and wanted to prove they could do better. Fortunately, the Ramsey/Washington County cable access was pretty well organized and decently equipped. They had excellent staff and they really taught good production values. We made our mark there over the years and ruffled a lot of feathers, but we also earned a ton of community awards and one national award. It was because of this experience that I went to college for journalism and film. I was also well ahead of my classmates when it came to production and I ended up teaching in most of my classes. The jump start I got in Public Access put me much further ahead and because of that, I started working in market #14 as a full time photographer while I was still a senior in college.

[EFP]

I don’t mind funding community access television.
Nothing wrong with giving ordinary folks access and opportunity at making television. The weirdoes and the freaks need to abide by community standards. The CATV resources should be shared by all the various ideas generated by the community but at the top level the place needs to be run by paid professionals.

But-
I don’t want to keep giving my money to cable providers who pass the money to cable outlets like the life channel who use the money to purchase crap amateur vj-type productions using sh!t-gear employing none-skilled people. “Commercial Crap” shouldn’t have to be funded by me. Let the advertisers support crap if they wish but don’t put my money at commercial television that can’t even generate enough money by advertisers or viewer pledges.

Dink may be right about having too much crap and not enough skill and talent at CATV but depending on the individual outlet, type of gear used and who’s running the place, community access television can be a great learning tool and a good place to have fun and get a message out.

Like many others I got my start at community access tv.
I never had my own show like Terry T.
I got in to learn the various technical positions so I volunteered as a grip.
Watching the audio techs, lighting directors, cameramen, I would eventually move through different tech positions. Then the brass offered me a paying job and I got put in “technical charge” for the “flagship” shows. Looking back a couple of decades = some of my times at CATV were the best times I had.

[Dink]

Without public access, I guess we would all miss out on important information like this (http://www.break.com/index/psychorogue.html).

[lenscracker]

That idiot would have been on a Government Access Channel, not public access channel. Every local government has a few weird people venting whether or not there is a TV camera. Most local government entities have stopped direct operation of public access channels, instead opting for them to be run by a non-profit organization while still running a government channel. It has to do with free speech. Municipalities these days can not afford to be sued by some idiot or radical group claiming free speech discrimination or by a citizen suing because their kid saw someone flash their boobs on a public access program. Municipalities are required to be neutral in political campaigns. Just think if an incumbent got more air time than a competing candidate. Unlike a broadcast station, the municipality itself would get sued. By separating public access the local municipality is virtually indemnified from dealing with content issues. Yet there are those wanting their several minutes of fame by venting at a public meeting.

Public access is important to maintain. Not just to protect free speech, but provide a training ground for the next generation of photographers, editors, etc. A new reporter fresh out of college can gain valuable interviewing experience. For those that worked in cable local origination, the whole thing of broadcast stations moving to V.J. a typical response might be: Been doing that here for years, what took them so long? The main reason most V.J. looks like junk, is a lack of skills. In cable Local Origination one learns early to quickly acquire a broad range of skills. The common questions I see on this site relate to: Lighting, Wireless gear, NLE; dealing with personality conflicts. Try the following -- Corporate product launch: Lighting a temporary stage (combination of fluorescent and tungsten); six cameras; two computer feeds for PowerPoint presentations; video roll ins; 15 microphone mix (combination of wired stick / wired and wireless lavs.) and then directing the two hour show. Being able to do this was from the skills learned in local cable. The point being, cable provides the practical world training.

The huge unknown about the legislation, is future funding for these channels. Certainly cable operators would be free from current obligations. Most municipalities operate their government channel by cable franchise fees. Here is the other rub that would deny viewer choice. Some cable companies operate Local Origination channels. On these channels productions are more refined, occasionally appearing highly polished and popular. Under the proposed legislation, it is a certainty local origination will disappear, which will be stupid for cable because it is one area that makes it unique from the competition.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Don't worry, there's always Sundance Channel. Their docs look like public access programming.

Warren