COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION, BUSINESS AND MILITARY AFFAIRS

Representative Angus L.K. McKelvey, Chair
Issac W. Choy, Vice Chair

Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:00 a.m.

Testimony IN SUPPORT of SB707 – Relating to Cable Television

My name is _______________________________and I am a resident of Maui County.

PEG Access is not a commodity and not a state asset. It is a local community asset paid for in full by cable subscribers in each county. PEG Access Providers in each county are independent not for profit 501(c)3 corporations funded by cable company “rent” for use of our public rights of way to fulfill the unique and fully local communications needs of each county. PEG Access was never intended by the Federal Government to be subjected to a competitive bidding process and nowhere else in the nation does this occur. Government intervened in the marketplace to create PEG access precisely because it provides a unique form of democratic access to the public airwaves that has no competitor.

Unlike all other forms of television, these fully democratic sole source media have built years of social capital on each island to empower local communities to program these channels on a first-come, non-discriminatory basis. No other form of television has these public benefit characteristics. An RFP process every three years will destroy this built social capital, restrict business, damage community communication, contradict the DCCA’s own plan for PEG access sustainability, stifle innovation, subvert long term planning and investment capability, and frustrate desperately needed new media education.

The already failed RFP process is unaccountable to the public or to the legislature, lacks meaningful oversight, contains no clearly defined evaluation process and singles out only the franchise fee contribution to the PEG Access as subject to procurement No other benefit from the cable operator is required to go through competitive bidding.

In addition, DCCA reports, the Legislative Reference Bureau and the State Auditor have all recommended a very public, collaborative approach to access regulation – the opposite of procurement. In 2008, an identical bill to SB707 (SB1789) was voted unanimously through every legislative committee but never made it out of House Finance. A HCR358 legislative task force was set up to study the issue and in it’s final report to the legislature created comprehensive draft rules for PEG Access designation as an alternative to procurement. A solution to the entire Access designation issue is available in the report For these reasons and many others, SB707 deserves to be passed out by this committee and considered by the legislature.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony before you today

Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:00 a.m.

Testimony IN SUPPORT of SB707 – Relating to Cable Television

My name is Jay April, President and CEO, Akaku: Maui Community Television
Member of the HCR358 Legislative Task Force

Imagine taking twenty years to build a successful business that people relied on, a business that taught people how to talk to each other in meaningful ways, a business that became a national model and an essential community resource by actually helping people succeed. Letʻs say you built such a business and the state came in, asked you to show them how you did it, counted up all your money and assets, and told you it was taking over and putting everything you built out to bid to the lowest bidder. What if they told you that you too could bid, on your own business, as long as you agreed to accept non-negotiable “conditions” required by the state, and that whoever wins the secret government bidding process for your business, gets everything you built – all your money, your house, your stuff…everything. You get nothing. Nothing to show for your years of hard work and commitment to your community.  All the experience, relationships, cultural exchange and community good will you developed over those twenty years would be rendered irrelevant.

This scenario describes a possible fate of successful community access television operations across the state if the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and the State Procurement Office (SPO) current plan to issue an RFP for PEG Access services were allowed to advance. The consequences of this action have the potential to remove local control of community communications, restrict diversity of voices, disrupt local media education and diminish “electronic green space” on every island. It would be like cutting down a healthy, living forest ecosystem and replacing it with Astroturf.

The consequences of submitting PEG access organizations to another  questionable RFP process is an economic issue as well. Not only will this action create more expense for the state and for the PEGs, it will certainly retard new media innovation in Hawaii and frustrate the stateʻs  laudable intention to foster resident access to necessary skills in the adoption and acceptance of broadband.

For years, state agencies have tried to put the free speech channels of Akaku and those of its sister public, educational and government (PEG) access stations on the other islands out to bid to unknown bidders. A Request For Proposal (RFP) was issued, protests were filed and withdrawn. Court cases and policy boards cast doubt on the process. Hundreds appeared in person to testify against this RFP and nearly a thousand people sent testimony to several state agencies, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and the Legislature – nearly all testified in favor of an exemption for PEG access, asking the state to leave our community stations alone. Bills were drawn up to exempt PEG access from this unworkable RFP process and passed unanimously through every committee in the senate and the house. A legislative task force of experts met, drafted comprehensive administrative rules and recommended NO RFP for Community TV. Currently, the DCCA Director himself and the State Comptroller are on record and in agreement that putting something as unique as PEG access out to bid would not be practicable or advantageous to the state. Yet, any day now, the DCCA has announced it will issue a Request for Proposals, or RFP, to put these community TV stations out to bid.

There are a multitude of reasons why an RFP process cannot and will not work which is why this methodology to designate access organizations is used virtually nowhere else in the nation. I will enumerate some of these reasons below:

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEG ACCESS REQUIRED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET TO BEGIN WITH. COMPETITIVE BIDDING WASTES SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY APPLY TO COMMUNITY MEDIA AND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS

By creating PEG Access channel requirements for cable and setting aside a small percentage of subscriber fees as “rent” for use of public rights of way, the federal government (and the Hawaii Legislature) directly intervened in the market because it knew that the cable TV marketplace would not support media literacy and local democratic television on its own. For the DCCA to apply a competitive bidding market methodology (RFP) to a non-market entity (sole source PEG access) is contrary to why PEG access was established in the first place. PEG Access is not a commodity. PEG Access Providers in each county are independent not for profit 501(c) 3 corporations who have built up valuable social capital for many years to fulfill the unique and fully local communications needs of each county. This social capital, a centerpiece of healthy community media, would be lost in any competitive bidding scenario.

PEG ACCESS FUNDS ARE NOT STATE FUNDS. THEY ARE DERIVED FROM LOCAL CABLE SUBSCRIBER FEES AS RENT FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Franchise fees from cable subscribers are not state funds. They are paid directly from the cable company to the PEG Access organizations in each county without passing through the state’s general fund. Local cable access boards provide proper oversight for the use of these funds and are the appropriate local guardians of this healthy public domain.

PEG ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS ARE SOLE SOURCE ENTITIES IN EACH COUNTY. NO ONE ELSE IS SET UP TO FULFILL THIS MISSION

These stations were set up in local communities and in Hawaii for the sole purpose and no other purpose but to create public access to cable and provide free or low cost media skills for any and all comers. No other entities other than Hawaii’s existing PEG Access organizations can hold claim to this specific mission. Simply put, there are no other qualified vendors with community access TV experience other than the PEGs themselves. PEG Access organizations are sole source entities in that they are the only form of television without an institutional programming agenda. Unlike all other forms of television, these fully democratic media have built years of social capital on each island to empower local communities to program these channels on a first-come-first-served basis. No other form of television has these public benefit characteristics. With procurement, the offerer with the most cameras wins.  Established PEGs on the other hand were set up specifically to build local social capital and are wholly unique in character and structure. They are a true sole source. They have no analog. No one else does this. There are no other qualified “vendors” and should PEG access organizations in Hawaii be subject to open competitive bidding, a replacement entity with a different agenda would in all likelihood even with the best intentions and adequate funding not have the required expertise or built up social capital to follow the mission.

THE STATEʻS EFFORTS TO USE PROCUREMENT TO DESIGNATE PEG ACCESS HAS ALREADY FAILED.

After issuing two hotly contested Requests for Information (RFI) the state issued an RFP in July 2007 and it failed. Akaku on Maui and Olelo on Oahu protested and the RFP was withdrawn. The RFP had provisions that were contrary to federal and state statutes and others that may have been illegal or discriminatory. It allowed the taking of property without compensation, ignored community building aspects of PEG access, did not require bidders to have public access management experience, contradicted the DCCAʻs own PEG self sustainability plan, diverted the majority of money, power and assets to state agencies at the expense of the public, forced PEG access stations to operate paycheck to paycheck on a month to month basis, mandated that funds be diverted to government without compensation, did not provide for community TV to collect its fair share of funding allowed by federal law, made no provision for community control and oversight and directed that decisions affecting the public access designee would be made in secret by unnamed state officials with no local input.

The RFP process initiated by DCCA/SPO appears, on its surface at least, to be a selective and arbitrary process unaccountable to the public or to the legislature. It lacks meaningful oversight, contains no clearly defined evaluation process and appears designed to weaken PEG Access providers in each county regardless of who the successful applicant or applicant(s) may be.

RFP PROCESS HAS PROVEN INCONSISTENT AND MAY NOT APPLY TO PEG ACCESS

The RFP example we have had to work with to date is inconsistent in that it singles out only the franchise fee contribution to the PEG Access providers as subject to procurement. It mandates a disproportionate amount of funding to state education and government at public expense, does not address other franchise fee allotments to vested interests or other tangible benefits to the state such as institutional networks, satellite dishes and the like, benefits that the DCCA Director has stated “provide enormous value to the state.” Nor does the RFP address the central issue of why PEG access, since it is derivative of cable franchises themselves, should be subject to procurement at all.

RFP DRAFTING PROCESS DOES NOT REFLECT “BEST PRACTICE”

The Hawaii RFP process is viewed by national experts as “not best practice”  (see video report to HCR358 Task Force) and appears designed to weaken the PEG Access organizations possibly because of the failure of SPO/DCCA to acquire the necessary expertise to draft the RFP. Specific examples include:

Splitting of Funds – Previous RFI/RFP drafts issued by SPO/DCCA indicated a prejudice in favor of a funding mechanism that splits funds into three P, E, and G categories contradicting “best practices” recommended in two previous state studies including recommendations from a report prepared by the Legislative Reference Bureau in 1995 and the 1997 DCCA study, “Disputes Over PEG Resources; Splitting the Baby is Not the Solution”

Restrictions on Business and Development- Previous RFI / RFP did not allow successful applicants to pay for legitimate costs of doing business for the duration of the contract. These expenses include advertising and public relations, client activities or programs, travel and transportation costs, food, lodging or mileage. Even fundraising was restricted without the approval of the Director of DCCA. In addition, previous RFI /RFP did not allow current PEG providers – which are independent, non-profit corporations – to use franchise fee funds for the preparation of the RFP and mandated a monthly, first in, first out (FIFO) franchise fee allotment. This requirement alone, coupled with a short 3 year renewal term before another RFP was issued, would severely restrict any successful applicant from conducting business in a prudent manner by limiting the PEG access organizationʻs ability to attract significant grant funding,build up reserve financial capital, invest wisely or engage in meaningful long term planning. These requirements also directly contradict the DCCAʻs own 2004 PEG Plan for the future development of PEG Access in Hawaii.

THE HCR358 TASK FORCE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT PEG ACCESS BE
EXEMPT FROM CHAPTER 103D ADMINISTRATIVELY OR LEGISLATIVELY

In 2008, your HCR358 Legislative Task Force, including several county procurement officers, studied this issue at length and determined that the incumbent PEG access organizations should be exempt from procurement.

With public comment overwhelmingly in favor of an exemption for the incumbent PEG access providers and the Procurement Policy Board sharply divided on this issue, If an RFP moves ahead as planned and the legislature chooses to sit this one out, litigation on the part of unsuccessful applicants will be likely drag on leaving the resolution of some of these issues up to the judiciary causing the state and the PEG access organizations to expend additional funds and further supporting the argument that procurement is not practicable or advantageous to the state.

Despite a Court ruling and comments by the Attorney Generalʻs office that the Director can exercise discretion to use “any other reasonable method” other than procurement to designate access corporations, the Director has taken the position that although he is in favor of a permanent exemption, he is nevertheless bound by law to follow the lead of the State Procurement Office which has ordered the DCCA to issue an RFP.

THERE IS A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION

SB 707 is it. There has been a solution on the table for years. In 2008, an identical bill to SB707 (SB1789) sailed unanimously through every legislative committee but never made it out of the House Finance Committee. A HCR358 legislative task force was set up to study the issue and in it’s final report to the legislature made specific recommendations and draft rules for PEG Access designation as an alternative to procurement. A solution to the entire Access designation issue is available in the report and detailed, comprehensive administrative rules have been developed that will silence even the harshest critic. SB707 contains language that will exempt PEG Access corporations from this flawed State Procurement process and deserves to be heard by committee and considered by the legislature.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony before you today.

In January, Oceanic’s license to operate in Oahu was extended  for another 20 years.  As part of it’s license to operate, Oceanic pays the state a “franchise fee” in return for using public property for infrastructure and to run it’s cables.  A portion of that money, required by federal law, goes to subsidize public, educational and government access.  This cost is paid by cable subscribers in their monthly bills.

The DCCA (State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) regulates the license for franchises in the state of Hawaii.  In 2000, the state imposed a cap on Olelo, which cut the funding in half over the past five years.  “The DCCA’s decision to continue to dirvert funds that are meant for the community’s benefit will mean additional reductions in our services on Oahu.” said, Olelo President Kealii Lopez.

For the full story, check PBN’s website.  http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2010/02/01/story11.html

January, 20, 2010

The Airwaves Belong to the People

In a democracy long, long ago when Community Television was in its infancy, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Nicholas Johnson recognized that according to U.S. law, “the airwaves belong to the people”

The year was 1972; cable television behemoths were about to wire the nation. The federal government’s intent was to protect localism and diversity of viewpoint by requiring these companies to pay “rent” for using our public rights of way by providing Public, Educational and Government Access channels, production equipment and facilities for public use on cable systems throughout the land. The fly in the ointment, however, was that the Feds left implementation and regulation of the Public Access concept up to LFA’s or local franchise authorities. Not every one followed this “best practice” model, but many did and in the vast majority of cases it was mainly city and county governments who granted local cable television monopolies. In a few cases, like New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Hawaii, cable regulation was assigned to a state regulatory agency.

Community Television, also known as PEG Access, began to proliferate in local jurisdictions. The more successful stations were independent nonprofits established at arms length from government and financed from up to 5% of cable revenues. These stations were set up in local communities for no other purpose but to create public access to cable and provide free or low cost media skills for any and all comers. The big idea was not to benefit any one institution or special interest but to serve the general public from all walks of life including the unaffiliated, the disenfranchised, the popular as well as the unpopular, people who would otherwise not have a voice, teachers and students involved in all aspects of formal and informal education. Another main goal was to encourage local democratic discourse by televising gavel to gavel coverage of government meetings making government more accessible to the masses.

The analogy that fits best is the one of the public commons or electronic park.

If television stations were buildings, each building would look pretty much the same but carry a different commercial agenda. HBO would sell you movies, MTV music, CNN news, PBS; Ken Burns, oil company hype and British drama. There would be a boss sitting in an office on the top floor deciding what you, the audience, would see. If you walked into any one of these buildings including the so-called Public Television building and wanted to get airtime for your idea, you wouldn’t get past the receptionist. It is even likely that if you pressed the issue “security” would throw you out.

Community Access Station, the electronic "green space"

Down below, between all these buildings is the public commons, electronic “green space” if you will, the Community Access Television station. This is not a building but a level playing field. The place where everyone, rich or poor, old or young, educated or not, can come to learn how to create media, foster ideas and showcase the diverse talent and ability vital to a living democracy. This is the electronic park open to all voices without censorship, a place that honors free expression and diversity of viewpoint, even points of view that may be unpopular or controversial. The one place left in a media universe dominated by corporate media that provides every one of us a free speech venue and non-discriminatory access to one another’s living rooms. A place to talk, to show, to tell, to discuss, to create, to innovate, to play.

The idea worked famously well in a lot of places until the Federal government under the reign of Ronald Reagan, began to deliberately ignore the principles of diversity, localism and public ownership of the airwaves embedded in the Communications Act of 1934. This abdication of the public interest has allowed five or six telecommunications giants to reap obscene profits and monopolize both the content and delivery of radio, TV, cable, telephone and now the Internet. For more than twenty years, companies like Viacom, General Electric, Disney, Time-Warner, Fox ,Comcast and others have cozied up to our elected representatives and regulatory agencies and now run the table on virtually all we see, hear and read in America.

With the astounding media convergence currently underway, there are billions of dollars to be made in them broadband hills and AT&T, Verizon and others have joined the fray. In their TV Everywhere world, there is simply no room in their view for uniquely local community media, community broadband, net neutrality, or innovative ideas that challenge the status quo. No room for the peopleʻs voice. This is why these companies have spent millions of dollars at more than 28 state legislatures to convince lawmakers to open the market, bulldoze the electronic park and replace our public commons with another government building, a state-run school or, better yet, another commercial channel.

Despite this sophisticated and well-financed onslaught from industry and government, there are places where community media and PEG access centers thrive with the backing of the local population. One of these places has traditionally been Hawaii primarily because the programs are generally responsive to the needs of the local community on each island; are somewhat adequately funded and are protected by state statute.

In Hawaii, public access stations are protected by state statute

One of these places has traditionally been Hawaii primarily because the programs are generally responsive to the needs of the local community on each island; are somewhat adequately funded and are protected by state statute.

The long term future for community television in Hawaii like every place else, however, may not be so good because for five years running the Time Warner cable monopoly hand in hand with the state cable regulatory agency, state educational establishment and other vested interests has attempted to repeal legislative protection for access and cutback on funding while adopting a divide and conquer approach. The master plan is to split up PEG access funding on the way to eliminating it entirely.

This is what I call the  “Sesame Street” approach to cable access. Not only is it anti-democratic, infantile and regressive, it is state run television at its very worst designed to centralize all communication in a corporate framework. It is not about “community” or “access” anymore but about the letters, P, E, and G. Under this revisionist regulatory environment, if we force the “P” or “public” side to continue to exist at all, it will only be allowed to function begrudgingly as an unwanted stepchild. To better understand what is really going on, let’s take a look at the history of how we got here.

In June of 1997, a report was prepared for the Cable Regulatory Authority of the State of Hawaii. (DCCA) It was entitled, DISPUTES OVER PEG RESOURCES: Splitting the Baby is NOT the Solution.

Splitting the baby is not the Solution, the "Judgement of Solomon" by Raphael

The State of Hawaii by and large heeded that advice and its “integrated model” independent Community Television operations, notably in Oahu and on Maui worked hard for years to become recognized as some of the best PEG Access stations in the nation.

This success was due in part to the fact that Hawaii PEGʻs adopted and put into effect a “best practice” integrated PEG model whereby independent nonprofits, created for this specific purpose in each county, provided channel space, unbiased gavel to gavel meeting coverage, nondiscriminatory access and low cost media training to local, state and native governments, private and public educational entities and a diverse and varied public. In short, Community Television in Hawaii has been empowering the local voices of each island community without censorship, editorial or state control for more than fifteen years.

By 2005, PEG Access on Maui became a victim of its own success. Private land development interests that did not like some of the messages being broadcast on these free speech venues conducted a sophisticated raid on PEG access coffers and combined with state educational agencies and the state’s monopoly cable provider, Time Warner, to launch a privately financed lobbying campaign to split PEG funds into thirds. The end result was 25% of PEG funding for Mauiʻs Community Television independent non-profit (Akaku) was re-allocated to state educational institutions in perpetuity without any accountability to the public. On Oahu, a similar development took place whereby 25% of the Oahu Access provider’s (Olelo) funds were diverted to state education and caps were placed on franchise fees by Decision and Order of the state.

monopoly cable provider, Time Warner, to launch a privately financed lobbying campaign to split PEG funds into thirds. The end result was 25% of PEG funding for Mauiʻs Community Television independent non-profit (Akaku) was re-allocated to state educational institutions in perpetuity without any accountability to the public. On Oahu, a similar development took place whereby 25% of the Oahu Access providerʻs (Olelo) funds were diverted to state education and caps were placed on franchise fees by Decision and Order of the state.

The diminishment of these local democratic media outlets was hardly a local

phenomenon. In the past three years, in state after state, from California to Texas to Michigan to Florida, sophisticated lobbying campaigns spearheaded by telcom and cable giants; Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon succeeded in de-funding vital community media access centers causing many to close up shop. They did this while the FCC, federal, state and local regulatory bodies either aided and abetted this taking of the peoples’ voice or simply ignored Federal Communications Law by looking the other way.

Back in Hawaii, incumbent monopoly telcom, Time Warner and state authorities have used secret back room franchise renewal proceedings, obscure rulemakings, technical barriers, stealth lobbying tactics, antagonistic regulation and the use of the State Procurement Code and other means to control and marginalize the existing independent and effective public access organizations and divert funds back to the state.

The thoroughly discredited “Split the Baby” rubric is back in force with government bureaucrats, state agencies, The University of Hawaii, the Department of Education and other vested interests hard at work to split the cable access baby into itʻs lettered components, P, E and G which could result in the dilution if not outright demise of the Public Access sector in Hawaii.

At the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis presented by freepress, I had the opportunity to discuss this very issue with Nicholas Johnson and George Stoney, the architects of PEG Access policy at the FCC in 1972. Back then, Nick

George Stony, "Godfather of Public Access

Johnson was FCC Chairman and George Stoney was working with Red Burns at the National Film Board of Canada and starting up the Alternate Media Center at New York University. They saw the big cable monopolies coming and knew that marketplace forces would be likely to always be deficient in meeting the communications needs of local communities. They concluded correctly that government intervention in the market was necessary to preserve the democratic ideals of diversity and localism in media in order to safeguard the greater public good in a mass media age. They envisioned Community Television (PEG Access) as an important social mechanism by which cable companies would pay “rent” for using public rights of way. Their vision was to democratize the dominant mass communications medium of our time by making possible policy and infrastructure to foster true, local participatory media. Both men told me that using the term  “PEG Access” was their biggest “mistake” because over time a misconception came about in some jurisdictions that  “P,”  “E ” and “G” ought to be separated financially. They assured me that this was never the intent.

The letters in “P,” “E” and “G”  symbolized constituencies served (Public, Education, Government) and were not conceptualized as funding categories to be split. We should have just called it  “Community Television,” they said, “because it is really about all of us”.

Be that as it may, some areas with a huge subscriber base (i.e. New York City) have split “P,” “E” and “G” successfully because the dollars are there to do it. In most places around the country, like Hawaiiʻs neighbor islands, they simply are not.

The reality is that smaller jurisdictions would be devastated by such a funding scheme resulting in the diminishment if not outright destruction of the resource. Why? Because the economy of scale to support three stations (P, E and G) including studios and facilities as opposed to one PEG access station does not exist. It would result in the antithesis of “community” television pitting one vested interest against the other.

The real tragedy of the electronic commons here is that in best practice the ” E”  money

The "E" in PEG

in PEG was never meant to augment or replace what I call, ” I ” or Institutional Television which can be defined as instructional or educational television (K-12 and higher) funded appropriately by state and/or local taxes.

This is the crux of the disagreement over “E” funds that nearly destroyed PEG Access on Maui in 2005 where the University of Hawaii and the Department of Education succeeded in getting 33% and currently 25% of PEG funds previously allocated to the nonprofit Access Organizations. Without diminishing in any way the significance and value of both “E” and “G” programming, it is fair to say that if the funding mechanism for PEG Access disappeared tomorrow, it is likely “E” and “G” would still exist. “P” almost certainly would not.

With respect to “E”, the operative word is “ACCESS. ” Educational ACCESS TV (As opposed to say, Educational or Instructional TV) means that any and all educators, teachers, students or clients of public, private, parochial, charter, adult or any other form of education are entitled to:  equal ACCESS to tools, cameras, computers, etc. – equal ACCESS to skills – the means of video production- equal ACCESS to ideas – media literacy and creative endeavor – as well as physical ACCESS to cable channels  – the right to broadcast. The key difference embodied in the term “Access” is that these privileges are not the exclusive preserve of the program managers of a given educational institution or entity but are inclusive of all comers within the “E” subset of potential users.

Educational Access, therefore, in its purest sense was never intended to entitle one or two specific state institutions access to cable subscribers while ignoring the responsibility to provide tools, skills and training to all educational sectors.

The "G" in PEG

A similar analogy applies to “Government  Access” or “G” programming. Government Access was meant to provide citizens access to government, not the other way around. The thinking was that if citizens could observe the workings of government in action they would be more likely to engage more fully in a participatory democracy. “G” was never intended to be state-controlled TV or even municipally controlled TV programmed by a government entity. The best practice model is more like CSPAN where an independent non profit is charged with airing unbiased public affairs programming and unedited gavel to gavel coverage of government meetings. This is not unlike the model we see employed in a majority of access venues today.  A pure “G” model in Hawaii would be inclusive of state, county, local and native government voices and would be inclusive of those who have an interest in civic issues raised in a healthy public domain.

The "P" in PEG Access

As far as the Public or “P” is concerned, the reality is that “we” are all the public. It literally is  “all about us” and the fully local communities we serve. The “P” sector is the most overlooked, the most disparate and the most inchoate. This is where views from diverse and often antagonistic sources are most likely to originate. This is where the sometimes untidy, but necessary ferment of local electronic democracy occurs. This is the area where free speech tends to be the most vibrant. Precisely because it is so disorganized, unpredictable and unfunded, it is the most vulnerable and in need of the most protection. This is why I am a strong advocate of the integrated PEG Access model. As stated before, if cable franchise fees were to go away tomorrow, I am fairly certain state sponsored “E” and “G” channels will continue to exist. I am also quite certain that “P” channels would not.

One of the reasons there has been so much wrangling in Hawaii and in other places about all this over the years is that it appears the stakeholders and policymakers have never really sat down to sort this all out in terms of defining these resources intelligently. Instead what we have had is a sad legacy of turf wars over limited money and resources.

It is time to revisit some fundamental truths and question old assumptions. It is time to publicly and legally challenge any argument to take away or to split P, E, G funds based on First Amendment principles and Federal Communications Law; diversify our funding base by embracing and exploiting new media; make sure that public interest provisions and funding mechanisms migrate to new community broadband paradigms; build our own public broadband infrastructure; petition the federal, state and local for redress of grievances through administrative proceedings and the courts; push for a change in federal law to get a percentage of cable modem and internet fees; consider statewide revenue sharing of franchise fees among access centers to benefit rural communities;  develop open, democratic and inclusive Educational Access and Government Access models; and demand that federal and state policymakers act to replace derelict telecommunications regulation with meaningful reform before we all miss the digital boat.

The winds of change are blowing in Washington D.C. If we stand up, and fight in the hallways, in the meeting rooms, at our civic gatherings, in the courts, in our council chambers, state capitols, media centers and on our screens, we just might bring enough financial resources and political clout to Community Media to help close the digital divide.

Whether or not the PEG Access community can join with other public media advocates fast enough to secure maximum public benefit for our local communities from cable, broadband, community radio and emerging new media technology remains to be seen. In any event, it is up to us. And for anyone who believes as I do that free speech extends into the airwaves we breathe, the air in which our greatest ideas and dreams travel, these endeavors are worthy of our best efforts.

Jay April President and CEO Akaku: Maui Community Television

Access Humboldt moves into newly completed center

After years of operating without a room of its own, Access Humboldt is about to welcome the public to its recently completed Community Media Center tucked at the rear of the Eureka High School campus.

What the public does with that high-tech gate into owner-created messages is just about limitless.

Consider what Access Humboldt has been able to do without a home — set up broadcasting of public meetings, advocate for high-speed Internet in all of Humboldt County and lead the way in archiving public access programming.

That’s not even touching on the innovative engineering that has allowed Access Humboldt to make most

of its equipment on a minimum budget. And tapping into an untapped pool of human resources.Like most successful ventures, the start was small. The story began in 2001 when Humboldt County and six of the area’s seven incorporated cities banded together to negotiate with the cable company. Trinidad had already reached a separate agreement for franchise fees, the money the cable company pays municipalities for use of right-of-ways to string the necessary lines. Essentially, 5 percent of cable television gross revenues are set aside for meeting community needs, Access Humboldt board member Jan Kraepelien said.

Part of the negotiation process was a lengthy, consultant-designed effort to document community needs. The No. 1 need,identified by those responding to “scientific telephone polls,” was “telecourses,” the desire to have College of the Redwoods or Humboldt State University classes available on cable television. Having alternate news sources came in second.

The cities and the county then unanimously voted to enter into an eight-year contract with the cable provider–at that time it was Cox Cable. The contract directed the cable company to dedicate channels to the effort and funding to a community access organization that the government entities would designate. That became Access Humboldt.

Since that time, the organization coordinates programming for four cable television stations: 8, 10, 11 and 12; provides the personnel to broadcast city council meetings in Eureka, Arcata and Fortuna as well as the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and is at the forefront of bringing high-speed Internet access to all of Humboldt County. Eureka, Arcata and the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors had broadcast meetings under the prior contract. However, the equipment has since been upgraded and the quality of the broadcasts is much improved.

Not long after Access Humboldt was up and running, the city of Fortuna requested

their share of the right-of-way fees allocation — which meant setting up the council chambers for live broadcast of City Council and Planning Commission meetings.Fortuna City Manager Duane Rigge, who advocated for the broadcasts, said that while the practice has tended to extend the length of the meetings, the benefit is that more of the Friendly City’s residents are engaged in the process.

”We have a community that actually watches it,” Rigge said.

Such tracking, he said, helps keep government accountable to the people.

Since beginning the live broadcasts, more of Fortuna’s residents have approached council members and city staff to discuss issues they witnessed via Access Humboldt.

A lot of the work behind the scenes at Access Humboldt, Kraepelien and Executive Director Sean McLaughlin said, is based on innovation.”If Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were alive today,” Kraepelien said, “they’d be using Access Humboldt.”

McLaughlin, who directed a public access program in Hawaii for many years before relocating to Humboldt County, said he was ready to do something cool and new.

Access Humboldt provides just such an opportunity particularly with the establishment of the “new generation” type of media center. One of the advantages of opening such a center at this point in time, Kraepelien said, is that the cost of technology is one-tenth of what it used to be while the quality of

the privately-made videos is much better.The collaborative nature of many who call Humboldt County home is one of the pluses of working in public access television on the North Coast.

It’s a community that continues to encourage and astonish McLaughlin– from the willingness to collaborate to the wide-range of media experience among those who now make the North Coast their home and who are willing to share that expertise.

The Center also provides training for the public and students.

With one large studio space and plans to convert other rooms into smaller studios, there’s room for instruction and production simultaneously.

The center is also leading the way in archiving all local productions. Public access stations in other areas are following in Access Humboldt’s footsteps.

With the opening of the new Community Media Center, those who sign up for Access Humboldt and pay the $25 annual membership fee, will be able to use the equipment, schedule studios and create videos. Members will be trained in the equipment’s use and, if interested, in how to produce video in the field.

Those who join the organization and are certified in equipment use, McLaughlin said, will be able to checkout cameras.

What Access Humboldt doesn’t do is influence the nature of the work’s content.

”We don’t care if it’s left, center or right,” McLaughlin said.

Each creator takes personal responsibility for what they submit. While public access does not face the legal limitations facing commercial broadcasters, the freedom is not limitless.

If members violate laws, they will face legal consequences, McLaughlin said.

There’s no pre-screening of submitted programming, but those submitting the work for broadcasting, Kraepelien said, are required to abide by standards–including disclosing if a broadcast has adult content.

”It is still a privilege, not a right,” McLaughlin said.

The ultimate goal, McLaughlin said, is to provide a venue for expression of ideas.

”We’re the free market,” he said.

But, the Community Media Center also provides an opportunity to teach more than just how to film videos or upload the same on the Internet.

”Young people today are into media for a long time,” Kraepelien said, they don’t need to know how to use available media forms.

”The whole idea is to be educated on how to use media, the Internet, appropriately,” he said. Essentially, to avoid cyberbullying and promote civility.

And the Center may be a boost for political candidates with limited resources. All are welcome to create videos for broadcasting on Access Humboldt channels either as a one-time event or on a regular basis.

Access Humboldt’s efforts have received recognition beyond the North Coast.

Just last year, the nonprofit received the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors Board of Director’s “Community Broadband Wireless Network of the Year.”

The award acknowledged Access Humboldt’s Digital Redwoods an effort, the nonprofit’s Web site described as “a series of municipal and community efforts that deliver broadband and digital media services to remote and rural communities on the North Coast of California.”

That honor is not taken lightly. As McLaughlin reports on the social network Facebook, “Access Humboldt is happy to report that our beautiful glass NATOA award survived the 6.5 earthquake despite being knocked from its shelf. Being housed in a recently retrofitted building is a blessing.”

The efforts that earned that national recognition will likely continue for many years. And it’s one that, McLaughlin noted, is vital.

”Information,” he said, “is the currency of democracy.”

WASHINGTON — Free Press and other consumer groups are calling on federal antitrust authorities and Congress to investigate agreements among giant media companies to stifle competition in the emerging market for online television programming.

This call for an investigation is based on a Free Press report released today. In the report, Free Press details how giant cable, satellite and phone companies and many leading programming networks, led by Comcast and Time Warner, are colluding on an industry-wide initiative called “TV Everywhere” that requires consumers to pay for cable TV subscriptions to access online programming. While being marketed as a consumer-friendly feature, TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate the threat of online competition, limit consumer choice, and build on the cable TV model that gouges consumers.

“This is a textbook antitrust violation,” said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska, senior adviser to Free Press, and author of the report. “The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves. TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television. The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground.”

Read TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV here: http://www.freepress.net/files/TV-Nowhere.pdf

On Dec. 15, Comcast became the first company to launch its TV Everywhere product, under the brand “Fancast Xfinity”; the other dominant cable, satellite and phone companies have announced plans to follow suit. Using published statements by industry executives and news reports about industry discussions, Free Press demonstrates in the report that the TV Everywhere initiative rests on an illegal agreement among competitors — and that the initiative would not be possible without this illegal collusion.

“Internet TV could actually inject much needed competition into a TV market long dominated by cable companies — this is a valuable opportunity to provide greater innovation for consumers,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. “More competition means lower prices for consumers. The Internet offers the potential for democratizing the TV screen now controlled by a handful of powerful media companies. We urge antitrust authorities to move immediately to promote competition.”

Parul Desai of Media Access Project said, “This is an important test for Congress and the antitrust authorities to make sure dominant old media companies don’t kill off potential sources of innovative, new competition just as consumers are getting accustomed to the possibility of that new competition.”

The consumer groups — which include Free Press, Media Access Project, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, Public Knowledge, and the Participatory Culture Foundation — filed letters with the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and congressional committees with jurisdiction over competition issues and media and broadband Internet services.

Read the report here: http://www.freepress.net/files/TV-Nowhere.pdf

Read the letter to the Department of Justice here

Read the letter to the Federal Trade Commission here

Read the letter to Sens. Leahy and Sessions here

Read the letter to Sens. Rockefeller and Hutchison here

Read the letter to Reps. Waxman and Barton here

“Public service nonprofit stations, like Akakū, are under serious threat from big cable telecom interests across the country. And can I buy clomid online for cheap community access centers in the Hawaiian isles are not immune to those threats,” says Jay April, President/CEO of Akakū. “We are pleased that this issue is on Rep. Abercrombie’s radar while in the midst of a competitive gubernatorial campaign. We hope that other lawmakers, like Rep. Mazie Hirono, will also show a sign of support by signing on to the bill and helping it advance out of committee.”

The Community Access Preservation Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), sets out to “amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for carriage and display of public, educational, and government channels in a manner consistent with commercial channels, and for other purposes.”

Worth noting, the bill also seeks to address the immediate issues facing PEG access channels, particularly those under state-level franchise authorities—like those in Hawaii. Specifically, some of the issues the bill would address include:

• Requiring the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG channels and requiring operartors to provide the greater of the support required under state laws, or the support historically provided for PEG,
• Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all landline video providers, and
• Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels, to name a few.

Rep. Abercrombie recently announced his decision to resign from his post as U.S. Representative in order to campaign fulltime for Governor of Hawaii.

“We look forward to working with Rep. Abercrombie to keep the issues facing Hawaii’s community access stations at the forefront of his attention,” continued April. “We hope he helps us to elevate the issues regarding our state franchise agreements, free speech and public access into his gubernatorial campaign—and the greater legislative conversation.”

The bill is currently in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. Local constituents can urge Hawaiian delegates of the House to support the bill and hear it in committee now and during the upcoming legislative session.

For more information on the bill, please visit:

• · For a .pdf of the Bill as introduced: http://telecommunityalliance.org/HR%203745%20-%20CAP.pdf
• · To show your support or comment on the bill, please visit Open Congress at: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3745/actions_votes
• · Or contact Akakū to inquire about how you can learn more.

Now at 11 p.m. on Ch54

Akakū: Maui Community Television added Democracy Now! to the 11 p.m. time slot on weekdays. Fans of Democracy Now! can now catch their favorite national, independent, news program three times a day at 6 p.m., 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on Akakū Channel 54 right before viewing The Maui Daily, Akakū’s community-based news magazine show.

Hosted by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now! is a daily, non-profit national news hour. It aims to provide its audiences with “access to people and perspectives rarely heard in American corporate-sponsored media.”

“Adding Democracy Now! to our late-night time-slots adds value to Akakū Channel 54. Viewers who appreciate alternatives to mainstream news may also find time to catch The Maui Daily—Akakū’s initiative to offer an alternative, participatory information source for the local community,” says Jay April, President/CEO of Akakū.

Akakū has relied on Democracy Now! to inform island viewers of major mainland and international news, including their special broadcasts of the 2008 general election results and their coverage of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions last year. For more information, contact Akakū at (808) 871-5554 or email info@Akaku.org.

# # #

Akakū: Maui Community Television (Akakū) empowers the community’s voice through access to media. Akakū is a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation that airs content created by the community for the community. Community members on Maui, Moloka’i, and Lana’i are encouraged to submit programming to the station, create their own television shows and have their voices heard by fellow community members. For more information, please visit www.Akaku.org.

About Democracy Now!
Democracy Now! is a daily, non-profit, national, independent news hour hosted by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S. out of its New York City headquarters, Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); and on the internet. DN!’s podcast is one of the most popular on the web.

Democracy Now!’s War and Peace Report provides its audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. In addition, Democracy Now! hosts real debates-debates between people who substantially disagree, such as between the White House or the Pentagon spokespeople on the one hand, and grassroots activists on the other. For more information, visit www.DemocracyNow.org.

This Week on The Maui Daily

Akakū: Maui Community Television is honored to announce this week’s host for its news magazine program, The Maui Daily—and admittedly a little star struck. Three-time GRAMMY® nominee Amy Hānaiali‘i lent her voice and her face to this week’s half-hour program that airs daily on Akakū channel 54 at 7 p.m., midnight and 7 a.m.

Amy Hānaiali‘i hosted Akakū’s The Maui Daily and shared images and sounds from her new CD “Amy Hānaiali‘i Friends and Family of Hawaii”. Hānaiali‘i’s fans and viewers of The Maui Daily will be able to get a small taste of what to expect when she performs at the Maui Arts and Cultural Center’s Castle Theater on Sunday, Nov. 29 at 7:30 p.m.

“We are honored by Amy Hānaiali‘i’s support of our mission with her truly exceptional voice,” says Jay April, President/CEO of Akakū. “The Maui Daily is all about getting local community voices to tell the stories of local community events, happenings, news and activities.”

Raised on Maui, Hānaiali‘i’s career has ascended to great heights. With 10 albums under her belt, Hānaiali‘i remains Hawaii’s top-selling female vocalist having garnered significant attention for her talents, three Grammy nominations, 15 Nā Hōkū Hanohano awards, and placement on the World Billboard Charts—a first for an album written solely in the Hawaiian language.

“Amy also reveals during the show her involvement in Nā Mele O Maui—the Hawaiian song competition for school children—when she was six years old. We really connected with that because it’s an event that Akakū records and airs annually,” says Emily Sullivan, Director of Productions at Akakū. (Akakū sells DVDs of this competition as a fundraiser.) “Amy even sang one of her new songs for us in the studio. We use it to close out the show this week.”

This segment’s first air on Akakū Channel 54, was on Tuesday, Nov. 17 at 7 p.m. Repeat airings will continue through Monday, Nov. 23 at midnight, 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The Maui Daily will also be available for online viewing at Akaku.org indefinitely.

# # #

Akakū: Maui Community Television (Akakū) empowers the community’s voice through access to media. Akakū is a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation that airs content created by the community for the community. Community members on Maui, Moloka‘i, and Lana‘i are encouraged to submit programming to the station, create their own television shows and have their voices heard by fellow community members. For more information, please visit www.akaku.org.

About Amy Hānaiali‘i

Amy Hānaiali‘i recently released her latest album called “Amy Hanaiali‘i Friends & Family of Hawai‘i,” an album of duets which she will be performing with other talents at the MACC’s Castle Theater on Sunday, Nov. 29 at 7:30 p.m.

Today, after 10 albums, Hānaiali‘i remains Hawai‘i’s top-selling female vocalist. She has opened for such artists as Carlos Santana, Willie Nelson, Joe Cocker, Wayne Newton, Boz Scaggs, Earth, Wind and Fire and many more. Hānaiali‘i has toured extensively on the East and West coasts of America, Germany, China, Tahiti and she often frequents Japan, where she captivates and expands her fan base along the way.

Hānaiali‘i’s success as a recording artist speaks for itself and is evidenced by her numerous awards and acknowledgements including three GRAMMY® nominations for Best Hawaiian Music Album. Amy’s albums have also garnered 15 Nā Hōkū Hanohano Awards (Hawai‘i’s equivalent to the GRAMMY®), including the prestigious Female Vocalist of the Year (4 times), Hawaiian Album of the Year (3 times), Song of the Year, Group of the Year, most recently Contemporary Album of the Year and even Christmas Album of the Year. Hānaiali‘i’s second album, “Hawaiian Tradition” placed her on the World Billboard Charts, a first for an album written solely in the Hawaiian Language. Amy is officially Hawai‘i’s Music Ambassador as proclaimed by Hawai‘i’s Governor Linda Lingle.

Amy Hānaiali‘i has come full circle back to her roots in Hawai‘i, with a new focus on tradition, culture and family. Raised on the Island of Maui in Hawai‘i, Hānaiali‘i attended Maui’s Henry Perrine Baldwin High School before she went on to the United States International University in San Diego, Calif. Today, she resides on the island of Moloka‘i with her daughter and her fiancé John Austin. In her “spare” time, Amy helps to run their shrimp farm.

Nā Mele O Maui Annual Song Competition is this Thursday, November 19, from 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., at the Castle Theatre.

Kahului, HI: Come celebrate this unique group of talented students, at the 37^th annual Nā Mele O Maui 2009 song and art competition.  The concert is a free admission event.

The song competition features grade school students, from 1^st grade to 12^th grade high school students.  Each grade competes for a specific award for their division.  The entire show will be performed live at the Maui Arts and Cultural Center’s Castle Theatre.

This annual artistic competition,  Nā Mele O Maui was created in 1972, for the youth of Maui County.  It strives to encourage arts education and promote Hawaii’s native culture, music, and language.

Akaku’s crew is donating it’s time and services, and recording DVD’s of each grade’s performance.  The segment DVD’s, featuring each division competition only,  will be available for purchase directly after the performance.  These segment DVD’s are available for $10 dollars.   Akaku is also creating a DVD of the entire Na Mele O Maui 2009 performance.  This complete DVD will be available for $25 dollars after December 21.  Please contact Akaku to place your order.  Also order DVD’s by calling 808-871-5554.

The Nā Mele O Maui competition will air on the Akaku, on December 25^th, on channel 52, and will be featured all day as part of the Akaku program of special events.