FCC rule change could eliminate public access television
By Eli Sherman
Posted Dec 8, 2018
Get ready to say goodbye to some of your local cable channel broadcasts of government meetings, elections and other town events.
The Federal Communications Commission is moving toward adopting a new rule that community television groups say would gut funding for public, educational and governmental channels.
“The loser if that ends up happening will be the local taxpayer, the local cable subscriber and the every-day citizens who rely on access to public information that’s provided through these programs,” said Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director and CEO of the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
The proposed rule, moving quickly toward regulatory approval, would allow major cable companies, such as Verizon Fios, Comcast Xfinity and RCN, to limit the amount of spending for community programming that has been negotiated as part of their licensing agreements with cities and towns.
Community access to cable television studios, equipment and air time was a huge incentive when cable was introduced in most cities and towns in the 1980s. Competing cable companies promised to put studios in high schools and provide training to anyone in the community who wanted to produce a program. Companies also promised to provide air time and equipment to broadcast local government meetings, elections and other events. Those benefits were in addition to the cable franchising fees, the money companies pay in exchange for access to customers in specific geographic areas.
The FCC has now decided that a community’s free access to produce and watch local programming should be treated as part of the franchise fee and its value can constitute no more than 5 percent of the fee. Community television groups say the 5 percent cap would make it nearly impossible to cover the expense of local programs and educational projects.
As an example, Comcast of Southern New England Inc. provides three public access channels in New Bedford, along with $70,000 each year for community-access equipment and facilities as part of its licensing agreement, according to documents filed with the state.
“The proposed rule ... would be debilitating to MCTV,” Marshfield Community Television executive director Jonathan Grabowsk wrote in a letter to the FCC.
But proponents of the rule change say franchising fees and community TV contributions are hidden costs that cable companies are passing along in the form of higher rates to customers.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a fiscally conservative Washington D.C. think tank, argues that local governments are using licensing agreements to boost city and town coffers. The group points to Eugene, Oregon, where the city used cable franchise fees to pay down unfunded pension liabilities.
“The commission will help prevent localities from gaming the system and holding up future broadband deployment,” the nonprofit wrote in September letter to the FCC.
Beckwith, however, isn’t buying the argument, saying the rule change is clearly designed to benefit the companies at the expense of the people.
“This is a textbook case of massive corporations using their power and their influence to try and lower their obligations and maximize their profits,” Beckwith said.
Massachusetts residents, including Wakefield High School student Derrick Scheeler, who is studying film, have submitted public comments to the FCC in opposition to the rule.
“Reversing this (rule) would make it impossible for us to purchase equipment (and) editing software and even just batteries for a camera,” Scheeler wrote in a public comment. “Don’t do this to us.”
Marshfield Community Television — a nonprofit serving about 25,000 people in the coastal town thirty miles south of Boston – supports a digital media and telecommunication program at Marshfield High School. It also covers nine boards and committees and “gavel-to-gavel coverage of town meeting. Reduced funding would result in fewer jobs, less coverage of government meetings and an end to programs highlighting nonprofits such as the Special Olympics and the Marshfield Boys and Girls Club, according to Grabowski.
“This proposed rule would not only significantly impact organizations like ours, but also members, governments, schools and nonprofit organizations we serve,” Grabowski wrote to the FCC.
In Salem, Mayor Kimberley Driscoll argues changing the rules around community-access television isn’t fair to local communities that have provided valuable access to cable customers.
“Cable-related contributions are not a benefit to the franchising authority, as interpreted by the commission. These payments are made to the residents of Salem as compensation for use of public rights of way. This is a critical distinction,” Driscoll wrote. “The (rule) makes broad strokes that are beneficial to the cable companies and takes very little consideration of the people who have benefited and continue to benefit from a mutually beneficial arrangement.”
The proposed rule, which could become final as early as December and take effect in the beginning of next year, has also caught the eye of U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat, who wrote a joint letter of concern to FCC Chairman Ajit V. Pai on Oct. 29.
“This is a lose-lose choice for (local TV organizations) and the residents they serve,” Markey wrote. “We fear this proposal will result in a dire drop of resources for (public) channels throughout the nation. In an era of media globalization and consolidation, (public) access stations continue to give viewers critical information about their communities and offer an important platform for local voices.”
Related content
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20181208/fcc-rule-change-could-eliminate-public-access-television
No comments:
Post a Comment