League of Women Voters of Connecticut

CGA Energy and Technology
March 15, 2011 Public Hearing

Testimony by Pua Ford, Media Committee Specialist

Support for Raised HB 5473 AAC Public Access Operations and the Periodic Review of Video Providers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Pua Ford. I am the Media Issues specialist for the League of Women Voters of
Connecticut. On behalf of the League, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity
to comment on this bill. Our perspective on these issues is based on our 2008 position:

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

Section 1
This is the fourth year that Periodic Review of the cable television and competitive video
industry has come before this committee. The League has strongly supported periodic review
with the hope that various problems that have arisen since the introduction of competitive video
might be addressed.

What is different this year is the recent Draft Decision on Docket 11-08-06 Public Utilities
Regulatory Authority Investigation into Community Access Programming and Operations. A
review process for the community access providers (CAPs), not the cable/video providers, is
proposed. We had hopes that the proposed reviews might take care of some issues and will offer
Written Exceptions to the Draft Decision for possible changes.

A review of cable and video providers as proposed here may be better, because it can address
issues not covered by a review of CAPs, such as consumer issues. Some had expected that a
competi-tive marketplace would allow consumers to vote with their dollars, making regulation
unnecessary, but after four years we have doubts.

Section 2
CAPs and other community access programmers need operating funds as well as capital funds.
Even with available volunteer labor, some paid staff is needed to complete the mission of
community access. In some places, the only source for this compensation is the per subscriber
fees for community access support. We support this section as helpful to the smaller community

access operations, and as equitable and fair, since larger CAPs already use the per subscriber fees
for personnel costs.

Section 3
It is our understanding that some town-specific channels lost funding after PA 07 253. If this
matter has not yet been settled by DPUC or PURA, we support this section to restore their funds,
the same as we would support adequate funding for other community access programming.

Section 4
Although this appears to be a simple update of statutory language, the term “entity” is vague and
open to unintended consequences. We urge caution in considering this.

Section 5
The League strongly supports restoration of the Connecticut Broadband Internet Coordinating
Council, which continued to meet and discuss issues even without a budget. The recent study
by the CT Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) on broadband access and adoption
includes a description of CBICC and its role in advising both this committee and a proposed
broadband cabinet. It appears to be the only group that brings public and private sectors to
the table, and has been a new window on their thoughts concerning broadband internet needs.
CBICC was on the point of reporting to your committee this year before members learned that
their estab-lishment had been repealed, and the council was forced to suspend activity.

CBICC’s discussions of “e-government” services and the needs of municipal govern-ments
for better connectivity focused on many issues of concern such as to emergency management,
proposed election reforms and the statewide voter data-base and the improvement of education.
Their work should continue.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on these issues today on behalf of the
League of Women Voters of Connecticut.

Pua Ford, Media Issues Specialist
League of Women Voters of Connecticut

CGA Energy and Technology Committee - March 3, 2011 Public Hearing
Comments by Pua Ford, Media Specialist, Regarding RHB-6460 AAC Public Access Channels and Support for RHB-6485 AAC Periodic Review of Video Providers

My name is Pua Ford.  I am the Media Issues specialist for the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.  On behalf of the League, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced bills.

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.

HB 6460 attempts to address various local problems stemming from two common issues:  (1) community access television groups all continue to need more funding and (2) there is a problem resolving control issues between town-specific and regional access entities.

• Sections 1 & 2 are based on 2008 legislation illustrating both those issues.  The League has no comment on these sections or on Sections 5 and 6.
• Section 3:  We would like to see clarification of this section.  Any company providing video services still owes a per subscriber fee for the support of PEG operations whether they choose to pass that cost on to subscribers or not and whether or not they are interconnected to PEG channels.  Relieving the competitive video service provider from collecting those fees should not relieve them from paying the accrued fees once there is an interconnection agreement. It has been almost three years since most good faith negotiations between video providers and incumbent cables commenced. There should be some language to force them to conclusion, especially because funding to smaller, town-specific organizations is held hostage during extended negotiations. Suggested substitute language is attached.
• Section 4: Although there is a universal need to fund labor and staff, it would be better to make sure these costs are allowable through the regular community access grant programs like those administered by the cable advisory councils in the two southern Cablevision areas, and as described in Section 2 of this bill.

HB 6458 came before the Committee in other forms during the past two years. With the entrance of internet protocol television and the passage of PA 07-253, there has been no regulatory check on video/cable television services. Among other problems, this hands-off situation leaves community access television centers vulnerable. If periodic reviews were in place and if the DPUC were committed to addressing this area of service, some of the problems that underlie HB 6460 might have been resolved.

The League views HB 6458 as a key piece of legislation whose passage and implementation cannot wait another year.  Please give this bill your full support.

 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on these issues today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Connecticut. 

Sincerely,

Pua Ford, Media Issues Specialist

League of Women Voters of Connecticut

attached:

Suggested substitute language for HB 6460 – AAC Public Access Channels, Sec. 3

Suggested substitute language for HB 6460 AAC Public Access Channels, Section 3