how-to block ads
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | Online In this day and age PEG-type channels should be delivered via streaming video or downloadable recordings. | |
|  
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: Online said by DMS1  :In this day and age PEG-type channels should be delivered via streaming video or downloadable recordings. It doesn't even need to be live. I'd rather download the video of a meeting and be able to fast forward thru all the useless preliminaries and pauses between agenda items.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Online said by TKJunkMail :It doesn't even need to be live. I'd rather download the video of a meeting and be able to fast forward thru all the useless preliminaries and pauses between agenda items. There are some important reasons for the video to be live. A lot of seniors in particular will watch the live video so they can stay home during the preliminaries and show up at the end for citizen comment on specific issues. Some cities actually allow email comments for live sessions.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by DMS1 :In this day and age PEG-type channels should be delivered via streaming video or downloadable recordings. Many of them are, but not everyone has a computer and/or decent broadband.
I don't think asking for some channel space in exchange for running facilities over the public right-of-way is asking too much...
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Online said by jslik :said by DMS1 :In this day and age PEG-type channels should be delivered via streaming video or downloadable recordings. Many of them are, but not everyone has a computer and/or decent broadband. They can go to the library and view it there. Or they can go to the meeting in person.
I don't think asking for some channel space in exchange for running facilities over the public right-of-way is asking too much...
It's a cost vs. benefit thing for me. Back in the day when cable first started, there were no other outlets for people. Now we have an explosion of free outlets on the Internet, with podcasts, YouTube, social networking sites, etc. etc. and incredibly cheap entry costs for equipment and hookups. Why should I as a taxpayer have to subsidize these public access channels and the production facilities for TV programs that have audiences measured in the single and double digits? | |
| | | 
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
·Comcast
| Re: Online Internet video isn't free. You need a computer, digital camera, sound equipment, editing software, lights and bandwidth. You could use YouTube but there's a pretty annoying 10 minute clip length to deal with. Public access on the other hand is 100% free. They supply the sound & video equipment. Phone lines for call-ins. Lights, access to editing equipment, and a director to do some basic camera switching/graphics overlays. | |
| | | | Answer Guy
join:2006-07-28
Grass Lake, MI
| Re: Online You still don't get it. Public access TV recording is still not free. Someone is paying for you to get access to this equipment. The CATV companies are paying for it by price increases on basic service rates for ALL CUSTOMERS! In some locations, the people are paying for it by additional taxes.
In the case of Internet video, it falls upon the person that wishes to use the service to pay the costs. This is a better model in today's age of cheap computers, cameras, sound equipment and software. I have everything to do this today in high quality and I didn't purchase any of it for that purpose. If it was your hobby, you can get started doing it for less than $1,000. A sharp change for the $20,000-30,000 it would have cost 15 years ago for similar quality.
As technology changes, rules need to be rewritten and changed to keep up. Keeping an outdated system such as PEG just makes no sense. One or two government channels is about the maximum for local government and school information. At some point, even this will be entirely on the Internet, but at this point that step is too early. Everyone else can reach a much larger audience using the Internet video sites. | |
| | | | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Online If going 100% streaming/internet isn't good enough for any other channel/network today, then why is it good enough for local access?
Books are cheap to buy (and even print these days) too, so why not get rid of the library? You'd save way more money...
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Online To me this is one of those things that started rather accidentally and has now become an entitlement or right.
It just so happened that Cable TV grew up as a local community phenomenon, it was originally CATV or Community Antenna TV. Some community decided to toss this burden on them, and others picked it up and ran with it. Then the FCC mandated it.
Now it's become a cause. There are organizations defending "our right to public TV channel access!!"
I just wish it was possible to have a discussion where we list pros and cons rather than have these causes and fights. | |
| | | | | | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Online said by MyDogHsFleas : Some community decided to toss this burden on them, and others picked it up and ran with it. Then the FCC mandated it.....I just wish it was possible to have a discussion where we list pros and cons rather than have these causes and fights. Well, technically, it's not 'mandated' by the FCC, it was placed into law by Congress who said communities want it can get it, but if the community doesn't want it, the cable co. doesn't have to provide it. I'm being picky. 
I think it's possible to have that pro/con fight, but there are few debates that don't devolve into a cause these days.
I did look up the last survey done in 1998 in Austin and it showed that 30% of then Time-Warner viewers watched public access frequently/occasionally. Many, many channels on cable would kill for numbers like that. Granted, the survey is ten years old, but I've seen similar numbers in more recent surveys in other places.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by MyDogHsFleas : They can go to the library and view it there. Or they can go to the meeting in person....Now we have an explosion of free outlets on the Internet, with podcasts, YouTube, social networking sites, etc. etc. and incredibly cheap entry costs for equipment and hookups. Why should I as a taxpayer have to subsidize these public access channels and the production facilities for TV programs that have audiences measured in the single and double digits? What about people that can't make to the library/meeting easily? Tough luck?
You 'subsidize' any number of things that are utilized by a minority amount of people in your community. That said, every survey I've ever seen on local access channels reports that they get a surprising amount of viewers, and are valued by the majority of respondents.
Your cable bill, incidentally, is full of subsidized channels which inflate your bill much more than local access, and if local access went away tomorrow, do you really think your bill would go down?
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | | |
|
