I meant to write a response to this post from the AJC Political Insider yesterday, but didn’t get the time. The gist is:
- The “new” AT&T wants the go-ahead to pipe video over its phone lines to compete with cable and satellite companies. Legislation proposed by state Rep. Jeff Lewis would allow for that.
- AT&T wants to secure a franchise agreement with the state to bypass negotiating with each and every city and county as cable providers do now. Public access channels are created through these negotiations, so the likely outcome of this arrangement would be no public access channels on AT&T’s network. And AT&T could save as much as $500 million by avoiding those negotiations and not having to create those channels.
- Federal regulations allow a $1 subscriber fee to be attached to such arrangements that would be donated to arts funding (it works this way in Texas). If the legislation were passed with such a stipulation, it’s estimated that $12 million per year would go to arts programs. In this case, it would act as sort of a penalty fee to make up for not having to provide public access channels.
- AT&T is against that stipulation.
- AT&T is giving a total of $2.3 million in various amounts to Piedmont Park, the Atlanta History Center, and another organization (the entry doesn’t identify the third party unless I’m just missing it). They hope this gift will demonstrate that such regulation isn’t necessary.
The question at the core of this to me is what is the role of a public access channel now? Is it an outdated concept since anybody can put a video on Youtube or dozens of other Internet services for free? Or is it still a vital community function by allowing free access to anyone who wants it, particularly to people who can’t afford their own equipment, and of keeping people in touch with their communities generally?
I can’t say I’ve watched anything on public access since college, and then it was a show run by two guys who provided commentary on local semi-pro wrestling. I didn’t even really keep up with what they were saying, I just thought they were funny. As you can probably guess, I was drunk 100 percent of the time I was watching them.
But that’s totally anecdotal. I don’t want to project and say that because it isn’t particularly valuable to me that it isn’t valuable to someone. If anyone can give better examples, I’d love to hear them.
The elitist in me would ask, from a community connectivity standpoint, what’s the difference in a government requiring a public access channel or in just posting videos to a free web site? In both cases, there are economic entry barriers to consume that media. A TV costs $100 or more, and monthly service costs $40 or more. A computer with enough power to watch Internet videos can be bought for as little as $200, and monthly broadband Internet service costs about the same as a cable connection. That leaves the question of access to production equipment as the most compelling argument for it to me.
The other point I could name against the legislation is if Comcast and others have to negotiate for those rights locally, isn’t that unfair to them? Why should AT&T get that $500 million gift and not Comcast?
The upside is that more competition in the cable/satellite TV market sounds really good to me. Comcast has been awful for me in both Tennessee and Georgia (anecdotal again, but I’m not the only one I’ve heard complaining), and I firmly believe it’s because they’re fat and lazy without any real competition to speak of.
Anyway, please help me flesh this out. I waffle all the time on media regulation issues (even net neutrality) because I can see both sides of the argument. Shorter version of pros and cons to me:
Pros
- More competition in cable/satellite television market = better service, cheaper prices
- Can possibly be done with some new guaranteed arts funding
Cons
- What about public access television?
- How can giving AT&T special treatment versus other providers be rationalized?
Cross-posted on my Georgia Podcast Network blog
Youtube isn’t the publicly-protected institution that public access television is. If internet access and content creation and distribution had an option as egalitarian as public access television (which includes in its budget allocations for training and content creation), then the comparison would be less apples-and-oranges. As it stands, public access content creation generally costs a nominal registration fee and the time it takes to attend whatever orientations your local public access people require before they’ll let you run rampant with their equipment. When you figure out how I can get the internet equivalent of my own half an hour of ad-free content distribution in the station between CNN and MTV for $50, call me.
Also, all that hot local political action you’re so fond of blogging about? I don’t know how they do things in your neck of the woods, but if I’m interested in a realtime update of what’s happening in my local political arena, I turn on the live televised city council meetings shown on public access, what with the whole public access being established partly as a tool by which municipal governments can solve their programming needs (don’t ask me).
(Those first two paragraphs sounded more confrontational than I actually care to be. Fuck it, it’s the internet!)
Conversely, the internet enjoys the same public-right-of-way designation that cable television, telephone, etc have. I wonder where the public access options for internet content creation have hidden themselves.
As far as giving AT&T preferential treatment…uh. Fuck AT&T?
I am goddamn well tired of typing “public access” over and over. Find a better subject that I actually know something about.
Good points all. My post wasn’t as well-put-together as I would have liked. I guess a question I have is has it, or is it approaching, a time when it’s outlived its usefulness? At what point would it be easier for a local government to just set up a web site with the same sorts of legal protection that public access TV has? Isn’t the whole Interent supposed to follow the egalitarian spirit of public access? And isn’t there the potential for a wider audience?
You’re totally right about the training part. But really, the production quality of most of the shows I’ve seen really isn’t much better than someone with a camcorder posting to YouTube. They could accomplish the same thing on the Internet for a fraction of the cost (same cameras and even studio, no costly broadcast antennae).
I get that there are still more people with TVs than with computers, and that live access to meetings is nice. But meetings can be (and often are) streamed over the net live. The Georgia Legislature does this.
I also get that Internet distribution can be problematic in rural areas (though cable can be too, leaving only satelite). Solutions to that aren’t too far off though.
Anyway, just tired and rambling.
I’m using this as a focus by which I keep myself awake this early so I can do the whole diurnal thing for my starting-tomorrow-action training and to keep my mind off the fact that I’m having to detox myself off those damn post-surgery painkillers. Those beautiful, wonderful painkillers. Anyway, I might not be coherent.
Yeah, from what I’ve seen the training is pretty rudimentary, and if the equipment hasn’t seen a total update since my friends tried to get me into PA, the locals here are working with abacuses and crude tools made from the bones of their kills. Plus, it’s not like they’re throwing scriptwriting courses into the mix. The training I’ve seen basically consists of “This is a camera. This is how you don’t break it. This is an editing station. This is how you don’t break it.” (repeat ad infinitum)
As far as outliving its relevance goes, I don’t think that’s going to happen until we see a paradigm shift away from TV and into computers as the “holy crap, you DON’T have one?” household item. Maybe Gates’ living-room-dominance boner will be for naught and the media center computer won’t be the homeowner’s new killer app. Iunno - my projections on that front are limited to SONY SUX M I RITE LOL.
This isn’t the most salient of points, but there’s a whole other level of dick-waving in hardware and software marketing and R&D, and I don’t think the average American consumer is ready for it. MacOS vs. Windows, XP vs. Vista, AGP vs. PCI-E, Games for Windows and DX10 vs. not giving your customers the shaft, and what the fuck’s a Linux!?!?! According to cave paintings found in Ohio, one of the greatest selling points of the prehistoric first-gen television was its convenience - buy it from the nice man, plug it in, turn it on, and hey! You’ve got a nice picture of an Indian and a soothing DOOOOOOOOT sound! Since then, upgrades to the TV have come in four flavors: bigness, smallness, coloreyness, and pixelness. I’m not a fan of lowest-common-denominator mentality, but there’s really something to be said for a future in which I don’t have to explain to my grandmother what a codec is or why Quake 4 won’t run on her Ibook. iBook. IBook. Whatever.
The ease-of-use argument is also compelling. Yeah, you probably shouldn’t have to know what a codec is to watch a public meeting.
Another point I’d throw out is broadband availability/adoption is low in the U.S. relative to other countries.
I know that we’re probably not ready at this very moment to do away with PA, but I am curious about what its future is, and what would be necessary to replace it. And possibly even whether it should be replaced.
From: rfrothgery@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Acmpolicy] Are public access channels necessary?
Date: February 13, 2007 8:20:23 PM PST
To: onyourwayhome@yahoo.com
Cc: acmstates@lists.mayfirst.org, Acmpolicy@lists.mayfirst.org
I would hope that this discussion would move beyond public access to include the other two elements of PEG. The interdependency of PEG strengthens its value compared to other program services in the cable spectrum. The pocket change per month that pays for PEG is far less than the cost, say, of ESPN or MTV on a per channel per subscriber basis.
More importantly, yet often ignored, is the way television is viewed. We tend to sit a few feet from the screen as opposed to seated at a computer screen. Television and video programs seen on computer screens are watched differently. This is especially the case with services such as YouTube. Here one can pick and choose short videos to view. It is highly interactive but is not like television. Television tends to be a little more passive, at least it is for me.
Program services such as YouTube point to the future of the medium. It won’t be long before that which lives on computer screens now creeps across the room to the TV set. When that happens then a lot of rules will be rewritten including PEG practices.
For the time being there is no substitute for PEG programming. It has a connective value in communities because in our culture appearing on television is still a form of validation. The same validation may apply to YouTube posts but without the physical connection to a local community. For YouTube users the commuity is defined more by interest than by locale.
There are lessons to be learned from new media that the PEG community should take seriously. The biggest is feedback loops. Most PEG programs are pumped out to viewers with little or no way for them to participate in the process. This is deadly. YouTubers can receive comments, ratings and honors from viewers which is a great stimulus to making better programs. Where is the PEG community is this practiced? Where is there in public access any incentive for producers to meet audience needs. Public access is very authorcentric by its very nature. The producer’s First Amendment perogatives are generally regarded as more important that the needs of the viewer constituency. How can this be amended without compromising the First Amendment? That is a question that can only be answered by the PEG community and only through action.
By way of anecdote there is a program in my community that I have mentioned before but is worthy of revisitation because it is relevent to this debate.
There is a program on my public access channel about veterans affairs. A couple of gentlemen sit on a sofa in front of a consumer DV camera and discuss issues related to veterans that the average vet might have a hard time finding. These two guys offer hints and tactics for gaining services that are otherwise unavailable. It is a great community service and it traverses the line between a physical community of residents and the larger community of interested persons. The program offers phone numbers for further information and discussion. The audience is comparatively small compared to broadcasting or the YouTube world so it is possible for a viewer to have a conversation with the show hosts in order to elaborate on a problem. It is a textbook example of the primacy and value of PEG television.
Half a century ago independent religious broadcasters faced extinction because the mainstream groups dominated the ever shrinking public affairs air time.
In many ways they shared the same difficulties faced by the PEG community. But they overcame those difficulties and soon came to eclipse mainline religious broadcasters. The reason for this is two fold. For their very own survival religious broadcasters had to learn how to communicate with their constituencies and create feedback loops, (usually involving money). Then when computers and satellites became available they took what they learned and built solid new networks. We all know the rest of the story.
This is something the PEG community can and should do for its own survival. The inevitable result will increase PEG value to communities and create a strong case for its continued existence.
This is not a criticism of the current status of PEG. PEG has a heart that beats strong, but perhaps could use a little potassium in its diet.
Robert Rothgery
Concord, CA
Public Access hasn’t been the same since Hosea and Alley Pat left us.
Apropos this discussion, there is a conference coming up in Cambridge from February 24-25 called “Beyond Broadcast” where a lot of these questions will be discussed and unpacked. Beyond Broadcast brings together public broadcasting, PEG, vlogger, webcast and other community media folks to discuss common issues and concerns. Highly recommended for people who are tracking these issues:
http://www.beyondbroadcast.net/blog/
You can even attend virtually if you can’t make it to Cambridge. There is a Second Life parallel conference with live streaming video and discussions taking place online. See http://www.beyondbroadcast.net/wiki07/index.php?title=Virtual_Beyond_Broadcast for details.
Thanks for that rikomatic. If I’d known about that a month or two ago I’d have tried to go. Oh well, there’s always next year! Maybe I’ll be able to catch some of the streaming casts.
I participate with the only PEG in Arkansas and have found one reason people watch is because they like to see someone they know (or themselves) on TV. It validates existance. Sadly, it would sound like we are a state of simpletons, but the fight to keep local control of rights of way, and seeing the cable company’s response to AT&T, has been interesting and informative and it getting more folks involved locally.
How funny that most of the comments here have come from people who (apparently) have little involvement with PEG (RHenry the exception, of course).
I have a different slant on commercial media versus Public Access debate. I fear single sided information. I don’t watch commercial news because it’s repetative. CNN says what FOX says what ABC says,…I would love for some channel to give me “just the facts, ma’am” and let me form my own opinion, but I guess the corporate big wigs (substitute government or whatever other evil posse you feel is trying to rule the world) doesn’t want me to do that. They insideously feed their opinions to the cattle who watch their channels by what stories they run, how they word them, when they run them, and even the commercials they use during the news casts. They want to tell us how to think, and I have a real problem with that. Yes, it is easier to simply accept what comes into my livingroom and not question what is happening and why, but that isn’t freedom. That is brainwashing. For THAT reason, public access is necessary. PEG is the forum for the classic “townhall meetings” for the video age. It allows everyone who can afford cable to stay informed and involved in their local government. Public Access allows the public to voice their opinions to their neighbors in a comfortable and non-threatening environment. It encourages debate, the cornerstone of democracy. And access is the stepping stone into technology for those of us who are usually stepped on and ignored because we are too old or young, have no skills, no disposable money, disabilities, or choose a different lifestyle from mainstream America.
So what if the shows will never be featured at Oscar night. They are by the people of my community, and they show me aspects of my community I never would have seen without PEG.
Is Access still necessary? Hell Yes! At least it will be until we all become the clones corporate America wants (and is diligently working toward) us to become.
Viva la differance!!
We’re just asking questions here Leaf, no need for the condescension.
I absolutely, 100 percent agree with you that big corporate media is repetitive crap.
And I absolutely agree with you that there needs to be a space set aside for public access.
I am just curious if a public access television channel is going to be the best way to do that in the coming decades.
I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to offend. I was trying to (very poorly) make the point that it’s hard to know where you’re going if you don’t know where you are. If you are lucky enough to have public access in your area, get involved! Go to the station. Tell them what you think. Use that valuable resource before you lose it. Take it into the future.
Who would have guessed thirty years ago how cell phones, faxes, and instant messages could change global communication? Technology changes rapidly, and the average American struggles to keep up with the new advances. It has served to create a new economic caste system - those who can afford the luxory of communication, and those who can’t. It is imperative that local governments ensure the lines of communication are kept open to the public. Freedom of Speech. Many communities now have emergency phone service offered to low income residents. Access media should be available to them as well. Most public schools now have web sites to facilitate communication between parents and teachers, but that does little good to the parent who can’t afford a computer or internet service.
Yes, the wave of the future is toward integration of the tv and computer. It doesn’t matter whether the PEG station uses a dedicated cabel channel or a data stream through the internet, there will always be a need for a forum that is accessable to all and dedicated to the voices of the community .