-----Original Message-----

From: Rick Maultra < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >

To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date: Friday, March 26, 1999 10:15 AM

Subject: Re: LA to Drop PEG Access Channels ?
 

>I thought I would share some thoughts regarding the LA public access situation

>as well as respond to a previous list serve message about Comcast's treatment

>of public access in light of the Media One merger.

>

>Here in Indianapolis we have Comcast and Time Warner. When the City renewed

>the franchise agreements for both in 1996, public access was dropped. There

>were a number of dynamics that played into this:

>

>First of all, the cable operators lobbied the City that they wanted to get out

>of public access.

>The bottom line is that it is not a revenue generator. We also had the issue

>of 'inappropriate programming'. One example was a guy that would sit on a

>stool and smoke a water pipe, speaking gibberish for an indeterminate length

>of time until such time that he passed out and fell off his stool. Suffice it

>to say that such programming isn't well received in the Bible Belt. Public

>access groups can make all of First Amendment/Free Speech arguments they want

>to about keeping A-Z programming on access but in the final analogy they don't

>negotiate the franchise agreements. Access television is treated much

>differently today than it was two decades ago when the operators would promise

>the community anything so as to set up shop.

>

>Regarding Comcast in their treatment of public access: here in Indianapolis,

>prior to the 1996 renewal Comcast's commitment toward public access could only

>be described as pitiful. There 'studio' was a house trailer behind their

>operations facility that had six foot ceilings with a few lights stuck to

>them. I think there were two cameras. Comcast did very little to promote

>usage and it became self-fullfilling as public access rode off into the

>sunset. Time Warner on the other hand, had a very active public access studio

>and training department. They even had an annual banquet for their access

>users where they gave out awards and the local GM/President even attended.

>Those public access users that were involved in Time Warner are still very

>active today in lobbying and organizing to get back on. They have recently

>presented a very impressive business plan to our Cable Franchise Board. That

>business plan certainly reflects what are perceived to be past mistakes in

>addressing 'inappropriate programming'.

>

>Finally, further disincentive to maintaining public access stems from the fact

>that cable operators such as Time Warner and Comcast are continually involved

>in their own local origination programming. TW has at least a couple of

>around the clock local news operations in New York and Florida and Comcast has

>its regional local network on the East Coast. They might perceive other

>localized programming to compete or duplicate their own.

>

>Rick Maultra

>City of Indianapolis

>Cable Communications Agency

>

>Dragovich, Peter wrote:

>

>> In my opinion, public access needs to find ways to adapt to the Internet,

>> including producing content that can be accessed via both the Internet and

>> viewed on a local public access channel(s).

>>

>> Peter Dragovich

>> Assistant to the City Manager

>> City of Concord

>> 1950 Parkside Drive, MS 01/A

>> Concord, CA 94519

>> (925) 671-3085 direct phone

>> (925) 798-0636 fax

>>

>> > -----Original Message-----