available to all for a nominal fee, have become what Anthony Riddle, executive director of the Alliance for Community Media in Washington, calls "the public square in the electronic age."

said by B :

I'd be interested in what numbers public access channels pull. I'd think they were teeny tiny / nonexistent.

The real "public square in the electronic age", as most know, is the Internet. And with the advent of audio and video (still wishing for a better vogue word) "podcasting", that's where people turn for interesting obscure stuff.

I really, really don't much care about "public access television".

-- B

said by jhh :

I don't mind one channel for city council meetings, city announcements, and school projects. But my city wants 4 of these lame channels when they cannot even fill enough programming blocks on one channel. Also people can make up there own minds on whether it is beneficial to have access to these channels. I am so sick of this fight and 911 not being avail on voip. If 911 is something you need, stick with bell. And if you see some sort of benefit from Public Access, then stick with cable. But I can live without any of these.

said by calvoiper :

Copied from an earlier post I made about three weeks ago:

As for the "public access support" ... I say: GOOD RIDDANCE!

All I've seen from those types of programs funded by local franchise fees is a mess of programming which is either propaganda saying how great local politicians are, or a slop of programming fawning over various "non-profit" and "public interest" organizations that then, in turn, endorse, support, and work for those politicians who control the committees that run these channels. In other words, pure incest committed with public money.

To the extent that there are any "public access" channels that broadcast anything more worthwhile than the basement cr@p so wonderfully satirized on "Wayne's World", I say let them justify their existence as any public tax eating program should, and don't hide their expenses in an indirect slush fund of broadcasting asserts controlled at the top by local political honchos.

said by calvoiper :

I particularly don't think that subscribers should be forced to underwrite the dissemination of ideas with which they may not agree. Public access may be great in some communities--in which case it should be ranked in budget priorities along with police, fire, and street repair. In those terms, we'll see if it merits public funding.

said by SRFireside :

The Internet is hardly a "public square in the electronic age" if you ask me. A public square denotes a local area where people gather or at least hear things in passing. On the Internet you have to specifically find a website, then download/stream whatever audio/visual content there is. Hardly something you can catch in passing. A cable channel on the other hand can be picked up by anybody in the area while they are channel surfing. Might sound like a stretch, but I caught onto Austin public access by channel surfing. Something that just wouldn't happen online.

said by marigolds :

Public access is not funded by the government. It is funded by cable subscribers through pass through fees, but those funds are paid directly from the cable company to a non-governmental public access provider.

said by calvoiper :

Cable companies don't object much to this hidden "tax" because they get to increase their rates to pay for it.

said by calvoiper :

If you gave cable consumers the choice of not paying for public access, they wouldn't, and it would die.

said by marigolds :

You do have that choice. That is how pass through fees work.