Menu:

 

(As formally posted.)
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
   Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Docket 11-08-06:
   PURA Investigation into Community Access Programming and Operations

Written Comments by Pua Ford, Media Specialist

On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Connecticut, I thank you for the oppor­tunity to comment on the above-referenced docket.  The League represents over 1,800 members in 28 local chapters throughout the state.  Most of our Leagues depend on local community access television channels for disseminating their forums and candidate debates to the electorate, which would never be fully covered by broadcast or statewide cable news.  Some members take up the camera themselves, producing programs for their local access centers, both town-specific and regional. 

In 2006-08, the League carried out a study of various media issues, including community access—public, educational, and governmental access (PEG)—television.  The member­ship arrived at concurrence on the following pertinent positions:

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that community access television channels must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded, regardless of the provider of TV/video services to Connecticut residents. Government should provide opportunities for citizen participation in decisions regarding community access, or PEG, TV.

Access to the public airwaves through modem TV or video communication is essential to the public interest and to League of Women Voters’ mission and purpose – to protect civil liberties, to ensure open, transparent government, and to promote the public’s right to know.  To protect the public interest, high quality PEG transmission and PEG availability on basic service tiers are essential.

In light of the League’s active use of PEG programming and our support for its continuation, we consider ourselves stakeholders in this docket. The League welcomes the initiation of this docket as part of protecting and promoting community access television.  We offer the following comments.

1.      The scheduling of proceedings, including the method to determine the order in which CAPs’ operations will be evaluated by the Authority and the number of formal reviews to be held each calendar year;

Order – We recommend  either a review of Community Access Providers by cable company (e.g., all Cablevision areas serially, then Comcast areas, then Cox areas, etc.) or by configuration of community access delivery, i.e., company-owned CAPs that include town-specific channels, nonprofit regional CAPs that include town-specific channels, nonprofit town-specific CAPs, company-owned regional-only CAPs, and nonprofit regional-only CAPs.

Number of reviews each year depends on the scope and frequency determined.  See also comments on items 3 and 7.

2.      Specific recommendations regarding the scope of and guidelines for the Authority’s review of CAP operations;

Scope: 
  • Include a review of interconnection agreements with certified competitive video providers, pending or existing. Differences among the agreements should be examined and explained: for example, whether return lines are provided by the competitive video provider so that the CAP can ensure high quality transmission signal to subscribers.
  • Require the provision and review of a CAP mission statement, similar to the review used by a public school district before its accreditation process.   This might provide some basis for evaluating how various CAPs provide community access television.
  • Seek explanations for the different standards and methods for different areas set by past DPUC decisions (e.g., why town-specific programming is allowed in one area but not another; how town-specific PEG support is distributed to individual towns).
  • Review whether a CAP also provides access out in the community (e.g., mobile production vans or loan of equipment for remote recording of community events) in addition to the investment in a commonly-shared studio space.
  • Review the CAP’s equipment inventory and suggest whether update is advisable.  Determine whether a CAP requires guidance in making a PEGPETIA application.  See also the comments on item 3. 
Guidelines:  As in all things governmental, transparency is desirable.  If site visits are part of the review, open them to the public as an educational opportunity for the community. 

3.      Frequency of the Authority’s review of each CAP operations;

Frequency – As the process is developed, we expect the first round of review to take longer than subsequent reviews; consequently, we anticipate fewer CAPs to be reviewed in the first years.  Once a regular process is in place, frequency depends on the scope of the review. At the current rate of technological development, computer  and video equipment start to become outdated within 3 years If part of the review process is to see how CAPs stay technologically current, a review every 3 years for each CAP is reasonable. 

4.      In the absence of franchise renewals, what, if any methods are appropriate to review and amend CAPs funding levels other than the annual CPI proceeding required pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §16-331a(k);

Major changes in the number of subscribers or in the number of users at an access center might indicate a need to raise the funding level—to maintain a basic service or to increase service hours to meet demand.

Smaller CAPs—those with relatively few subscribers spread over a wider geographical area or the nonprofit town-specific CAPs—may need more funding to adequately serve all the potential users in its area.  Heavy traffic or long distance to a central studio may deter potential producers. 

5.      Whether programming can or should be made available to a larger audience (including that from other towns) and in different ways (e.g., ideas and/or technologies to enable town-specific programming);

During our study of these issues, the League did not form a position on town-specific vs. regional programming, recognizing that there is value in both.

We are aware of discussion about PEG programming being available on the Internet, so that it is available to those who do not subscribe to cable or video service.  If this is part of the CAP review, separate funding support for Internet provision should be ascertained.

We strongly maintain that Internet availability of PEG programs should not eliminate the provision of community access programming on cable or video service.  Not only is the provision of community access television programming just compensation, in part, to the public for commercial use of the public rights of way, but broadband Internet—required for adequate video transmission—is not available or affordable to everyone.*PEG programming—especially local governmental programming—is popular with the older population who usually have TV but sometimes have no Internet service at home.  It is widely known that senior citizens are active voters and so are particularly interested in local governmental television programming, where available.

If this Authority decides that any form of wider dissemination of programming is desirable, attention should be given to potential financial burdens on a nonprofit CAP.

6.      The use of Public, Educational and Governmental Programming and Education Technology Initiative Account (PEGPETIA) funding for CCFAs and CVFAs to enable more town-specific programming;

We suggest that this be considered as an application by the appropriate nonprofit CAP.   If the CAP is company-owned, the appropriate advisory council (local or statewide) might apply.  To ensure a level playing field among CCFAs and CVFAs, PEGPETIA should not be used to build connections that have always been the responsibility of incumbent cables, such as paying the costs of lines to a head end or return lines for monitoring the channel signal.  Any encoding equipment needed to make programming transmission should also remain the responsibility of the companies.  Using PEGPETIA for those purposes diverts funding from the purpose of PEGPETIA which is improving and producing more PEG programming.

If this Authority determines that providing more town-specific channels encourages people to produce more community access programming overall, then use of PEGPETIA should be explored. 
7.      Any other issue to assist the Authority to ensure that community access in Connecticut is managed and operated consistent with applicable federal and state law and regulation, efficiently and in the public interest.
  • A review process should also be instituted for the cable and competitive video providers, as has been outlined in bills for the past three legislative sessions.  Although our concerns are mainly addressed through a review of CAPs, many concerns are inextricably intertwined with industry developments in the aftermath of PA 07-253.  Is new pricing, digitalization of channels and additional equipment requirements driving people from subscription to cable or video?  Are more people turning to the Internet for their video?  This reduces the contributing audience for any CAP and adversely affects their basic operational funding.  For these reasons, we believe periodic review of the industry is also very important.  
  • A revision of the Annual Report form for CAPs may be in order.  As the Secretary of the State’s Commerce Division provides for First Report and subsequent Annual Reports, this Authority might consider a full Three-Year Report form and subsequent less-detailed, follow-up annual reports (e.g., asking, “Have there been any significant changes in your facilities or equipment inventory?”).  Simplifying the report form would encourage more timely reports.
  • Applicable federal and state law and regulation are obscure and confusing to the average citizen/consumer, even to local cable advisory councils. Similarly, the process of DPUC/PURA dockets is cloaked in the jargon of the legal profession and of the specialty language of technicians.  The public would be well served by a program or document that clearly explains the procedures used by PURA in its work, similar to CT-N’s short video, How to Testify at a Public Hearing.    If the Statewide Cable Advisory Council were appointed, it might be asked to develop such a project.  One of the basic principles behind the League of Women Voters’ support for open government is the citizens’ right to clear information.  Or, as phrased by the Center for Plain Language, “Plain language is a civil right.” (http://centerforplainlanguage.org)
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this docket and to express our support for community access television, an especially important part of the League’s work during election season.
League of Women Voters of Connecticut
1890 Dixwell Avenue, Suite 203
Hamden, CT  06514-3183
203-288-7996
lwvct@lwvct.org
pua4d@yahoo.com

* LWVCT position on Universal High Speed Internet Access for Connecticut

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports making high speed Internet access available to all Connecticut residents, without charge, through schools, libraries, and other secure public buildings.  High speed affordable Internet access is an essential service that should be readily available to all Connecticut residents and businesses.  State and local government policies should support broadband, wireless, and other means of high speed Internet deployment throughout the state.

Efficient, high speed access to the Internet for all Connecticut residents—regardless of geographic location or neighborhood demographics—is a necessity for assuring equal access to local and state government, for maintaining openness and transparency in government activities, for communicating with legislative leaders, for engaging in political discourse, for competing in the global marketplace, and for assuring that voters receive the information they need to participate in our democracy.