Ask Before you Switch

A Generation of Consolidation

A documentary exploring the impact of media consolidation on news content and how this affects youth, both as viewers and media makers.

Get Flash to see this player.

by Reel Grrls

Is the face of public access programming changing?

Could revisions to a bill passed by the House last year change the way West Hartford residents view public access programming?

That's the question some public access leaders are asking after members of the Connecticut House of Representatives convened to revise the language of a 2007 bill deregulating the cable broadcasting market in the state. Supporters of the bill hoped it would stimulate competition by allowing new entrants into Connecticut's television broadcasting market.

Recently, members of the House revised provisions of House Bill 5814 to require video franchise providers to interconnect with public access at no cost to public access. Some public access leaders said language in the revisions could negatively effect the future of public access programming.

One of public access leaders' greatest concerns was a provision that, while stating that service providers must pay for interconnection costs, also stated that service providers "could use the method most economical for them," said Jennifer Evans, production manager for West Hartford Community Television.

Following testimony by Evans and others at a recent legislative hearing, members of the House removed the phrase "most economical" from the bill. They also removed the bill provision that assured costs for interconnection with public access stations would be paid for by the entrant video broacasting franchises, said Evans.

Rep. Steve Fontana (D-North Haven) said AT&T, a video service franchise making in-roads in Connecticut, has drafted a letter in which the company pledges to pay for all interconnection costs. Although he and his colleagues had not yet received the letter as of March 12, Fontana said that it is legally binding. leaving no need for the bill provision.

In his testimony at a recent legislative hearing, the president of Connecticut Network, Paul Giguere, voiced concerns about the way AT&T has made community access programming available in parts of California and Michgan, the only other states where the AT&T U-Verse platform is currently operational. Giguere said that AT&T's U-Verse PEG platform, which the company plans to use to transmit public access channels, transmits with much lower video quality than is currently offered on public access channels in Connecticut.

Evans said the platform made public access programming look like "YouTube on TV."
Evans said that in addition to seeking assurance that interconnection and transmission costs would be covered by all service providers, the people behind West Hartford Community Television are advocating for language that sets quality, accessibilty and functionality standards.

Citing long channel-loading delays and confusing drop-down menus, Evans said that AT&T's product for delivering public access is inferior to the platform on which commercial channels are delivered.

"New technology is supposed to enhance, not degrade, the delivery of a channel. Instead, we find that AT&T's PEG solution is inferior and, frankly, unacceptable. Please don't legislate a race to the bottom," said Evans in her testimony before legislators.

©West Hartford News 2008
West Hartford news

Don't shortchange our public access

Why is it that public affairs and public access channels get such short shrift and lack of attention from cable companies and Internet Protocol-based television purveyors?

It was only a few years ago that cable providers in this region made unfathomable attempts to cut back on local public access channels.

Now, the Connecticut Television Network, devoted to coverage of state government issues, fears it might receive second-class treatment as AT&T rolls out its newly authorized U-verse service in many communities across Connecticut.

CT-N officials are fighting back — and rightfully so.

Connecticut residents who avail themselves to AT&T's new service, where it is available, should be able to get the same high quality viewing that they would if they continued to subscribe to a cable provider.

Officials at CT-N say AT&T may assign them to a substandard channel in their system that will be difficult for viewers to locate and won't provide that high quality viewing.

CT-N officials have been viewing what U-verse offers through public access in other regions and maintain it's not a pretty sight. In fact, CT-N officials set up a comparative U-verse/cable viewing of a public access channel in Michigan (www.compare.ct-n.com) and there was a noticeable difference in quality.

That mustn't happen here and AT&T must be held to the promises they made when they sought approval last year for their new video services and access to the Connecticut market. They won a franchise that doesn't have all the regulatory restrictions cable franchises do. The Connecticut Network is supported through taxpayer funds and provides a valuable public service for citizens to be informed about their state government and the decisions being made in it. Its quality must not be compromised.

connpost.com

Courant.com: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Don't Downgrade Public Channels

April 7, 2008

I applaud The Courant's decision to encourage the General Assembly to protect the Connecticut Television Network from substandard delivery on AT&T's U-verse video system [editorial, April 4, "Don't Downgrade CT-N"].

The editorial did not mention that this "downgrade" will also have a significant impact on the many community-based public, education and government channels throughout the state. Just as CT-N has built a loyal following, these channels have become valued sources of information about community issues, school events and government services.

On cable systems, subscribers can find local channels without difficulty and easily monitor long-duration programming, such as meetings, by tuning away and back with the touch of a single button on the remote. The ability of subscribers to select and view community programming in a convenient manner is critical. Unfortunately, this might become a casualty of AT&T's preference for an economical form of signal transmission.

Connecticut residents should not be penalized by the legislature's efforts to ease the entry of AT&T, or any new competitor, into the cable TV market. These competitors should be required to deliver CT-N and all community access channels in a manner equal to that used for commercial channels.

AT&T will make money using the streets and poles throughout our neighborhoods. Good corporate citizenship is the least we should expect from them in return.

Scott A. Hanley

Southington

The writer manages the town of Wallingford's government access TV channel.

Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant

Corporate Media vs Public Access

Produced with the facilities and staff of Community Television of Santa Cruz County. Kathy Bisbee, producer; Jeff Dinnell, director, camera, actor and editing.
Community Television of Santa Cruz County

Energy & Technology Committee Public Hearing

Raised Bill No. 5814
An Act Concerning Community Access Television

NATOA Survey: Impact of State Video Services Legislation

natoa.org

PEG Channels Access on AT&T U-Verse