calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| What "public access" really is....
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.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| 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. Public access is not funded by franchise fees, nor any other public funds. Public access funding goes direct from the cable company to a contracted non-government public access provider. Public access funding is not even mandatory for cable companies anymore but rather normally included as part of local level franchise negotiations.
Some areas produce high quality public access programming (easily competitive with PBS) while others, well, produce exactly what you are talking about. It all depends on the quality of the contracted public access provider.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Public access is the forced expenditure of monies by the cable company--and it causes a direct increase in the cost of cable to consumers. The fact that in many jurisdictions it may pass directly from the cable company to some supposedly "non-governmental" body changes neither the fact that it is effectively a tax imposed on cable users or the fact that local politicians have a huge influence over what goes out on the "public" access channel.
I don't understand your claim that "public access" funding isn't mandatory--if it's in the franchise agreement, it's mandatory, regardless of WHY it's in the agreement. Cable companies don't object much to this hidden "tax" because they get to increase their rates to pay for it.
Your own argument exposes this for what it really is--just a hidden "tax" supporting your own preferred programs. To say that this isn't somehow a "tax" on end users is like imposing a fee of 3% of sales on grocery stores in Benton County and then claiming that it won't increase the price of groceries by 3%.
If local government is going to extract money from cable companies for "franchise privileges", fine. Let them include it in their budget and then let your dear old quaint "public access" channel compete with other city services for that money. THEN we'll find out how really valuable that channel is--and we'll also have some political accountability over how it's operated.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by calvoiper :Cable companies don't object much to this hidden "tax" because they get to increase their rates to pay for it. I don't have (nor do I want) access to your cable bill, but mine lists Public, Educational, Government Access Fee as a separate line item (which is optional under 47USC542(c)(2)), so raising rates to pay for PEG (at least in my location) could certainly raise some eyebrows. PEG Fees, as well as Franchise Fees, are often one of those surprises that customers find on their first cable bill, since they are not typically included in the published rates.
While YMMV, in my case Public Access is not a forced expenditure of monies by the cable company - it is a direct pass-through charge to the customer. Although, similar to Franchise Fees, that does not prevent the cable companies from reporting it as revenue. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | OK--that strengthens my point--it's a tax on end users.
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to calvoiper
Public access is not mandatory because the cable company is not required by the FCC to agree to any public access aspects of a franchise agreement. If the cable company asks to remove the public access funding, the city has to remove it.
It is a contract between the cable company and a contractor. The city does not become involved in the contract, only in the negotiations of the contract.
The PEG fee that J D McDorce mentioned is a different fee altogether. That is a pass through fee and can only be allocated towards the purchase of equipment for PEG entities. Public access contractors do not receive any of this funding (despite the name), but community television groups (still public, but different from public access) do. This money cannot be used towards operational or facilities costs, only equipment replacement.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| What basis do you have for your statement that "the city has to remove it"? In my area, Comcast is negotiating a new agreement and the government is still forcing them to support "public access."
Additionally, since the city lets the cable company pass the cost on, it's pretty much neutral to the cable company anyway. It's just the end users that get shafted with an additional tax to support "public access".
Face it--the cable companies do this to please the politicians, who then get to pump propaganda at public expense. And PUHLEEZE, no more of this "independent contractor" or "community group" crud. These are all cutie little groups cozy with the politicians that control their funding through franchise agreements.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :The PEG fee that J D McDorce mentioned is a different fee altogether. That is a pass through fee and can only be allocated towards the purchase of equipment for PEG entities. Maybe as a part of a local franchise agreement. There is not such a stipulation in either United States Code or FCC Regulations.
Ref: »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···.925.htm |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to calvoiper
Why are you blaming public access channels for the cable companies slapping additional fees on your bill? Funding public access is the agreement the cable company made to that location for their monopoly franchise. In other words the cost of doing business. EVERY business has various expenditures they have to deal with above and beyond what is considered normal. The only difference is the cable companies (and telco companies) decide pass that charge directly to their customers as a line item instead of factoring it into their normal operating costs (and subsequently their advertised subscription costs). |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :What basis do you have for your statement that "the city has to remove it"? In my area, Comcast is negotiating a new agreement and the government is still forcing them to support "public access." FCC rules and the telecom act of 1996. Cities can no longer require public access funding. They can require educational and government funding as well as franchise fees. They can require PEG equipment fees.
The cable companies know all to well that if they take a franchise agreement to court they will win and they can strip out all but the provision required by the fcc. The main reason they do not do this is court costs, PR, and parallel agreement structures.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by marigolds :FCC rules and the telecom act of 1996. Cities can no longer require public access funding. They can require educational and government funding as well as franchise fees. They can require PEG equipment fees. I'm extremely curious where in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that this is referenced. And the FCC tends to leave it up to the LFAs.
Additional references: »www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/pegfacts.html , »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to SRFireside
I'm blaming them because it shouldn't BE a "cost of doing business" for cable companies. Like my grocery example above, it's a hidden tax WHETHER OR NOT it's an itemized line item.
We don't force grocery stations to give "public access" to food, or gas stations to give "public access" to gasoline, so why should we force cable companies to give "public access" to cable channels?
Yes, there are needs to be filled in areas of food and gasoline, and we support these out of general tax revenues. One of the benefits of this funding is that food and gasoline which is publicly funded has to compete for public dollars and periodically justify its funding. "Public access" cable should do the same.
What "public access" advocates really want is their own little publicly funded empire where the funding mechanism is as hidden as possible and where they never need to justify their expenditures or existence. One of the methods "public access" channels use to gain support is serving as propaganda whores for local politicians and influential "community" organizations. As I've said before, it becomes an incestuous use of funds extracted from the public.
I say just once let these "public access" channels compete for their money with police, fire, street repair, homeless assistance, playground funding, and all the other things supported by local public funds. THEN we will see how valuable OR NOT these channels really are.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to J D McDorce
said by J D McDorce :said by marigolds :FCC rules and the telecom act of 1996. Cities can no longer require public access funding. They can require educational and government funding as well as franchise fees. They can require PEG equipment fees. I'm extremely curious where in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that this is referenced. And the FCC tends to leave it up to the LFAs. Additional references: » www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/pegfacts.html , » www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html 47 USC 542 (g)(2)(C)
Cable operators can only be obligated to pay capital costs. They cannot be obligated to pay operational costs. I think I was wrong on the act though, this one looks like it was modified by 1987, not 1996. Operational costs used to be included as well.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by marigolds :47 USC 542 (g)(2)(C) (2)(A) through (2)(E) defines what is not included in the franchise fee. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to calvoiper
You talk as if public access channels are these robber barons expensing a fortune while nobody is looking. Have you ever seen a public access station? They are normally either some spare studio in some local station or something in a college media room. Most of the time the ONLY thing the cable company is actually paying for is to broadcast the channel. Show me the budget for an average public broadcast station. Then we can talk about how it's leaching money off subscribers. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to J D McDorce
said by J D McDorce :said by marigolds :47 USC 542 (g)(2)(C) (2)(A) through (2)(E) defines what is not included in the franchise fee. Exactly. Anything not expressly excluded from the franchise fee cannot be imposed as a separate obligation.
Check out section 47 USC 542(h) for further details. A franchiser can choose to apply the franchise fee towards public access operational funding (though this rarely happens and is subject to the 5% limit), but cannot require public access operational funding separate from a franchise fee.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to SRFireside
You may view the resources used to support "public access" as "spare" studios or channels, but they do take money and space that either costs money or is worth cash.
They are a propaganda machine slavishly supporting local politicians--and one outside the budgetary process. Even small town newsletters pumping local politicians have to justify their funding from tax dollars--but these "public access" programs never have to compete for their funding.
The channel could easily be devoted to more worthwhile programming--not all networks charge for their feed like ESPN does--some even pay to be carried. Studio space (or the equivalent monetary funding for it) shouldn't be forcibly given to favored political allies while funded by subscribers.
This whole scheme is a tremendous abuse of power, and for some of you it won't become real until you see the day that Texas "public access" channels are full of shows on Creationism that preach the evils of evolution, all the while being funded by governmentally forced local subscriber subsidies....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Please refer to my response in the Abalone thread. Be careful. You are starting to sound like an alarmist. That's not the way it is across the board. You can't base something that's nationwide on just what your local community is dishing out. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to marigolds
Shame on you, marigolds.
First, Section 542(h) is irrelevant to this discussion. Its terms expressly apply to persons "other than a cable operator", e.g., a separate broadband subsidiary. Bad red herring, that.
Second, you state incorrectly that 542(g)(2)(A)-(E) is the only list of allowable impositions outside of the franchise fee. That is not the law. (A)-(E) list the impositions which escape the overall 5% franchise fee limit, but are not an exclusive list of allowable impositions.
Read Section 542(c)(1) and (2):
said by 47_USC :
(c) Itemization of subscriber bills
Each cable operator may identify, consistent with the regulations
prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 543 of this title,
as a separate line item on each regular bill of each subscriber,
each of the following:
(1) The amount of the total bill assessed as a franchise fee
and the identity of the franchising authority to which the fee is
paid.
(2) The amount of the total bill assessed to satisfy any
requirements imposed on the cable operator by the franchise
agreement to support public, educational, or governmental
channels or the use of such channels. All kinds of support for "public access" can still be forced by local authorities. True, some of them may be includable in the 5% franchise fee limit, but that doesn't change things--these charges are still allowable under federal law.
Oh, and the reference to Section 543 clears up another point: under 543(b)(4) the costs of "public access" MUST be included in the price of basic tier service (the only tier local authorities can price-regulate.) So much for those "opt-out" claims.
I, for one, would much rather see a tax/fee imposed on the cable service and have that money in the local authority's general fund. Then these political propaganda machine can justify their existence each budget cycle the same way the building inspectors and dogcatchers do.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by calvoiper :First, Section 542(h) is irrelevant to this discussion. Its terms expressly apply to persons "other than a cable operator", e.g., a separate broadband subsidiary. Bad red herring, that. Second, you state incorrectly that 542(g)(2)(A)-(E) is the only list of allowable impositions outside of the franchise fee. That is not the law. (A)-(E) list the impositions which escape the overall 5% franchise fee limit, but are not an exclusive list of allowable impositions. Oh, and the reference to Section 543 clears up another point: under 543(b)(4) the costs of "public access" MUST be included in the price of basic tier service (the only tier local authorities can price-regulate.) So much for those "opt-out" claims. (h) Uncompensated services; taxes, fees and other assessments; limitation on fees
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit any authority of a franchising authority to impose a tax, fee, or other assessment of any kind on any person (other than a cable operator) with respect to cable service or other communications service provided by such person over a cable system for which charges are assessed to subscribers but not received by the cable operator. It is not a red herring. The section is stating that the authority to impose a tax, fee, or other assessment is unlimited for entities other than a cable operator. For cable operators, the imposition of taxes, fees, and assessments are limited to those listed in Part III.
Sections (A)-(E) are an exclusive list of allowable impositions outside the franchise fee. A city can include access support within a franchise fee, but as public access is a non-government entity and franchise fees must go to either the general fund or a defined telecommunications fund within the franchiser's government structure, the money cannot go directly to public access. The money can go directly to governmental public channels (such as library channels, community television groups, etc.), and can also be granted to public access through a competitive grant procedure with other non-governmental agencies such as community block development grants(which is what you have argued for all along).
Section 543(b)(4) does not specify costs which must be included in the basic tier, it specifies that there must be specific standards to determine whether or not costs charged to a customer are being used to satisify franchise requirements for PEG support. Section 543 concerns rate regulation for basic cable; those costs are separated out because they are not to be considered by a rate regulation Commission in setting the basic cable rate for a community (basic cable rates can be set by FCC for an individual community rather than by the cable company if a local entity appeals a rate increase to the FCC).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
