|
Options for Making an Access TV Channel Available to the Community June 21, 1999 The primary objection that the Indianapolis Cable Franchise Board has raised regarding Public Access of Indianapolis's (PAI's) proposal for public access TV, is that public access TV is not part of the requirements in the current cable franchise agreements with Time Warner and Comcast, and therefore the new fourth access channel cannot be used without renegotiating the franchise agreements. PAI contends that the Indianapolis Cable Franchise Board has at least three avenues, including franchise renegotiation, to take to implement the plan for public access TV. Starting from the easiest:
- Officially designate the channel as a government (or educational) access channel, and use the capacity to implement "community TV" in the interest of the public.
- Change the City Code to require a public access channel or channels.
- Renegotiate the Franchise Agreements.
PAI's research into federal law, state law, local law, the franchise agreements and court rulings finds that there is nothing to prohibit the Cable Franchise Board from doing this, and that nothing would be compromised in PAI's plan by calling it "community TV". This requires only action by the Cable Franchise Board.
All laws and recent court rulings hold that cable operators such as Time Warner and Comcast have no editorial control (or First Amendment Rights) over PEG use of PEG channels. In Time Warner v. Bloomberg and The City of New York, Time Warner sought and was granted a TRO and preliminary injunction against New York for running a commercial news network, Bloomberg, on its government access channel that Time Warner did not want and competed with the news networks that Time Warner chose to carry. However, the court wrote:
"In any event, the determination as to a permissible use of a "G" channel would likely depend on the precise nature of the programming being offered and whether the placement of the programming on a "G" channel meets a community need not otherwise being satisfied."
The Cable Franchise Board's own survey shows that "community TV" is something Indianapolis cable subscribers think is valuable and important – something that is not available and is in the public interest. And serving the public interest by preserving the intent of PEG channels, turned out to be the deciding factor in Time Warner v. Bloomberg and The City of New York.
In the last two years, the Cable Franchise Board has voted twice to allow commercial entities to make use of one of its educational channels despite the opinion of Time Warner v. Bloomberg and The City of New York, Federal law, public desire to use the channel, and public opposition. In the first case of running Fox Sports Midwest on Time Warner's EPS educational access channel, Jay Satterfield of Time Warner agreed with PAI that this decision was counter to the court opinion, but stated that he did not intend to sue. In the second case of running The Recovery Network on the EPS channel, Board Chairman Carlton Curry responded to PAI's objections by saying that we should submit a business plan if we wanted to be similarly considered for carriage on access channels. To deny PAI's request raises a lot of questions about serving the public interest and disparate treatment.
Supporting References: Federal Law on Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access TV Channels Time-Warner v. City of New York: Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, and Mayor Giuliani Fight for Control of Public's Property ACM Public Policy Update on Corporate Use of Access TV Channels |
