Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 153-08City of Palo Alto Manager’s Repor TO: FROM: DATE: SUB3ECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTIL4.TIVE SERVICES MARCH 10, 2008 CMR: 153:08 INFORMATION ON TESTIMONY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET This is an informational rep_0rt and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND In 1983, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Ather~on, and portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (CAO) for the purpose of obtaining cable television service for residents, businesses and institutions within these jurisdictions. The JPA gives Palo Alto the authority to administer the cable franchise process on behalf of its members. Franchise holders provide compensation to the JPA (e.g., franchise fees, Public Education and Govermnent (PEG) access fees, PEG cham~els, etc.) for the use of its public streets and rights-of-way. On October 22, 2001, the Council designated the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. (Media Center), as its.Community Access Organization (CAO) to manage and operate the JPA’s PEG access facilities and channels provided pursuant to the AT&T Broadband cable franchise. DISCUSSION On January 29, 2008, Am~ie Folger, the Executive Director of the Media Center, was invited to testiS, before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. She spoke on behalf of the Alliance for Community Media, a national membership organization, representing 3,000 PEG access centers across the nation. A copy of her testimony is attached. In her testimony about the future of PEG access in the digital age, Ms. Folger called attention to the growing erosion of PEG support in video provider circles. That lack of support could seriously undermine and tt~reaten the ability of PEG to fulfill the vital public interests that it is charged to serve. She focused on the problems the Media Center has encountered with AT&T’s PEG product on its U-Verse system, which now is offered in one JPA member’s jurisdiction. Ms. Folger informed the House Subcommittee that AT&T’s method and format for delivering CMR: 153:08 Page 1 of 2 PEG access channels renders them substantially inferior to every other available popular commercial channel on AT&T’s system in virtually every way that would matter to a concerned viewer. She urged Congress to support and strengthen laws protecting PEG access and to let industry and the FCC know that cm-rent efforts to imperil PEG will not be tolerated. By doing so, Congress would provide local commtmities with the ability to engage in local media, to express their unique interests and cultures, to get to know their neighbors’ views and to stay informed on local issues. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTA CHMENTS: Attachment A: Summary of Testimony Attachment B" Testimony MELISSA CAVALL.O ~ Cable Coordinator :/ L.ALO PE~Z ~" Administrative Services Director EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:I53:08 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A SummmT of Testimony The Alliance for Community Media by Annie Folger, Executive Director, Midpeninsula Community Media Center Public. Educational and Government Access (PEG)In the Digital A~e U.S. House Committee on Commerce and Ener~, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet January 29, 2008 PEG Access owes its existence to the visionaries in Congress \~ho recognized that the franchising process created an unprecedented oppormniD; to enable local communities to provide for their unique needs. Millions of dollars have been spent by telephone and cable companies in the past two years on ad campaigns and lobbying to influence state cable franchise laws in 17+ states. The FCC has overruled Congress, assigning itself powers that Congress conferred on local conamunities. This chaos is being used to dismantle PEG support and to damage channel quality and accessibiliD:. We welcome colnpetition. But it cal~i!ot be used to shirk PEG Access obligations that have provided direct service to the local community. Many PEG centers have moved into digital technology for production and transmission. PEG centers are fully engaged in migration to an integrated digital environment when allowed. The primma,, challenge for PEG access is not digital technology, but how cable providers-- whether traditional cable operator or a telephone company-- prov_ide PEG signal quality, functionality, channel placement and funding support. 2- How U-Verse is Delivered in Palo Alto AT&T’s "PEG pla~’orm" is an inferior technology which is only applied to PEG Access. The U-Verse PEG s.vstem is sub-par, low resolution and cumbersome and PEG channels are confined to a separate system inferior to commercial channels on AT&T’s system in virtually every way that matters to a viewer. For example, Palo Alto cannot closed-caption the educational programming our hearing-impaired students rely on. Most DeAnza CommuniD~ College programnaing is c!osed-captioned, as California law requires. AT&T, however, will not pass through the closed-captioning DeAnza includes in its programming. This means that our disabled students cannot be served as the law and common decency demand. Other PEG Deficiencies Engineered into U-Verse: ¯DVR’s cannot record PEG ¯Have 25% as much resolution ¯45-90 seconds to load channel °Have much smaller picture ¯Channels are hard to find °Picture stutters when used for spoi’ts, ¯No second audio program dance or motion. (:Vo~e: To Receive sample PEG on ~ Verse D VD, see contacts on reverse side.) PEG Is Under Attack Around The Country ¯ MI Comcast unilaterally channel slams PEG in ways that make it far less accessible to the public. Comcast has closed facilities in nine different cities. °IN Comcast closed PEG facilities in 12 communities. ¯OH, FL, MO, WI PEG funding 100% eliminated in the next five years. o KS Salina PEG loses over $130,000 per year immediately--the majorib, of its budget. ¯TX Time Warner eliminated PEG facilities on the first day allowed, with practically no notice, sending the Public Access channel into black. Other examples of unintended consequences and bad action allowed in the current chaos are available. We Need Congressional Help .4s you did i~ 19~4. we look to you. our leaders in Con~.ress. to declare your vision i~ 2008. to tarese~a,e the abil#v o~local commu~fities to enza~e in local media, to express their zmiaue interests and cultures, to ~et to know their neighbors views, to stay informed on local issues For Copies of the PEG ON U-Verse DVD, Please Contact Anthony Riddle For further information: Annie Folger, Executive Director Midpeninsula Community Media Center Palo Ako. CA 650.494.8686 Anthony Riddle, Executive Director Alliance for Comnaunity Media raiseevervvoice~::vahoo.com 202. 957.5504 Alliance ~br Community Media 666 ! 1~h Street NW, Suite 74(~ \Vashinc, ton DC 20001 202.393.2650 The Alliance full), suppo~ts the testimony of Mayor O’Rielly of Dearborn, MI on behalf of NATOA and local governments. -~ The Alliance for Community 3~redia, a national membership organization, represents 3, 000 _Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access centers across the nation, PEG channels are used by 1,2 million volunteers and 250, 000 community o~ganizations. Local PEG prog’ammers produce 20, 000 hours of new programs per week -more new programming than all of the broadcast nem, orks combined ATTACHMENT B BEFORE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF P,.EPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY COSIi~rIERCE, SCIENCE AND TP,_4aNSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMU~-NICATIONS AND THE tNTERNET PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS SERVICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE Testimony of A2~SVIE FOLGER Executive Director MIDPENINSULA CO3,E~IUNITY MEDIA CENTER, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA o~7 behalf of The Alliance for CommuniO, Media JANUARY 29, 2008 ROOM 2322, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHDqGTON, D.C. Good aRernoon, my name is Annie Folger, Executive Director of the Midpeninsula Community Media Center in Palo Alto, California. We are a non-profit organization responsible for managing the public, educational and government (~PEG") access channels serving the City of Palo Alto and five surrounding jurisdictions. I speak to you on behalf of my community PEG center and the members of the Alliance for Community Media. The Alliance represents over 3,000 PEG access centers across the country. Our thousands of members, millions of community television producers and tens of millions of viewers thank Chairman Ding~ll and Chairman Markey and the members of this Subcommittee for inviting me to speak with you today on the important topic of the future of PEG access in the digita! age. PEG access owes ~ts existence to the visionaries in Congress who recognized that the franchising process created an unprecedented opportunity for localized and diverse content that responds to the unique needs and interests of each particular community. Thanks to this vision, community media has grown and thrived since the 1984 CaNe Act. Members of Congress have repeatedly affirmed the importance of PEG access to the community. Alliance for Community Media Page I PEG communities now produce more than one million hours of original programming per year. Tens of thousands of people are first taught by PEG centers to use video equipment and computers for the benefit of their communities. Over the past 35 years, PEG has become an in’eplaceabIe part of community dialogue, participation and local identity. Alliance members in the room today have come from California, I!linois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Virginia and Washington, D.C., representing PEG operations across the nation - all states in which PEG access is threatened in the current, chaotic environment. The Allio,0mce testified before this Committee nearly two years ago in copmection with the then-proposed federal franchising legislation. Since that time, a major push has been under,ray for control of the cable market. Massive dollars have been spent by telephone and cable companies on ad campaigns and lobbying to influence legislation. PEG support is eroding on several fronts. Video service providers have attempted to deprive PEG channels of the same viewer accessibility, signal quality, channel functionality and channel positioning that they afford to all other commercial programmers. Since 2005, state cable franchising laws have passed in 17 states, and most are being used to dismantle PEG support and to damage channel quality and accessibility. In just the last year the FCC adopted rules that Alliance for Community Media Page 2 assi~ itself powers that Congress rightly placed in the !oca! community. The FCC rulings are fraught with provisions and conditions that undermine the development and viability of PEG access in the future. AI! of this has been done in the name of promoting competition. We welcome competition. But it is not an excuse for shirking or dismantling PEG access obligations that have provided direct service to the local communities for over thirty years. Chairman Markey noted the dangers of this deregulatory fervor in an address a year ago in Memphis, Tennessee, when he said: "We will not let telecommunication cdmpanies or the FCC kill PEG access television." These assaults on PEG have resulted in a chaotic environment for PEG centers, programmers and viewers. And they threaten the ability of PEG to fulfill the vital public interests that it serves - interests that Congress has recognized and fostered repeatedly ever since the Cable Act was first enacted in 1984. To put this issue in perspective, PEG funding constitutes less than a q~arter ofl% of cable revenues in this country. And yet over a million hours of local progamming result each year. While PEG channels are 100% devoted to the local public, less than one half of 1% of programming on commercial stations today - that’s only 17 seconds per hour! - is devoted to local public affairs. Communities and PEG centers across the nation are experiencing a variety of different kinds of threats to their PEG channels. They include: Alliance for Community Media Page 3 ,Cable operators relegating PEG channels to the inferior status of a mere Internet application rather than a true video channel. ~Operators moving PEG channels to high digital tier channel numbers that require subscribers to pay for additional equipment to view PEG channels. Substantial reductions in PEG monetary support due to operators’ unilateral interpretations of new state laws or FCC rules, Shutting down of PEG studios by operators. . Operators forcing PEG centers or local governments to purchase new transmission capacity to be able to send PEG programming from PEG studios or city hatls to the operator’s headend. .Freezing the number of PEG access channels that an operator will provide, with no opportunity for growth. PEG in a Digital Environment. The primary challenge for PEG access television is not digital technology and transmission, but rather how infrastructure-based video providers, whether they are a traditiona! cable operator or a telephone company, treat PEG in terms of Alliance for Community .Media Page 4 signa! quality and functionality: subscriber access to PEG channels, channel placement and PEG funding resources. Many PEG centers have already moved into digital technology for production, post-production, and to some extent, signal transmission. PEG centers are fully aware that this migration to an integrated "end-to-end:’ digital environment will continue, and we are committed to planning for and implementing reasonable, cost-effective solutions. Contrary to industry claims, the Internet is not a replacement for PEG. Many, if not most, PEG centers already have websites, and many stream video content from their websites. But that is no substitute for reaching the public through dedicated video channels on a cable system. If it were, then over-the-air broadcasters and traditional cable channels like CNN and ESPN would presumably abandon the expense associated with transmitting their video channels and rely exclusively on the Web. But of course, they do not. Rather, they use websites as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, their video channels. My own community of Palo Alto, California, has already begun to suffer from AT&T’s shirking of its PEG obligations in ways that will also affect other communities across the country. Alliance for Community Media Page 5 AT&T’s "PEG Product" in Palo Alto. Let me begin with the example with which I am most personally familiar: The problems that the Midpeninsula Media Center has encountered with AT&T’s so-called "PEG product" on its U-Verse system that is being marketed in the Palo Alto area. Because AT&T’s "PEG product" is the same virtually ever),~vhere, the problems my community has encountered will occur ever?~,here AT&T extends its U-Verse video offering. Palo Alto has seven PEG channels that deliver a wide variety of diverse programming of ~eat-ir~terest to our residents. Rep. Eshoo’s town hall meetings, for instance, are carried live on one of our PEG channels. She reaches constituents who carmot make it to the meeting and answers questions that constituents e-mail to her while they’re watching. Similarly, our state senator, Joe Simitian, produces a show called Capital Focus that runs on one of our PEG channels. But these are just a few of the many examples of diverse and locally-responsive programming that our residents can watch on our PEG channels and nowhere else. AT&T’s plarmed "PEG product," however, would radically change our PEG channels. It would make our PEG channels substantially inferior to every other popular commercial channe! on AT&T’s system in virtually every way that would matter to a viewer: in terms of ease and time of retrieval, in terms of signa! quality, in terms of channe! Nnctionality, and in terms of channel location. Alliance for Communit>’ Media Page 6 AT&T’s method and format for delivering PEG access channels to subscribers is fundamentally inferior to that of Comcast, our incumbent cable operator. Also unlike AT&T, Verizon, the other major telephone company entering the video market, is operating hundreds of cable franchises across the country in a way that permits it to meet the same PEG public interest obligations as incumbent cable operators. Unlike incumbent cable operators and Verizon, PEG channels on AT&T’s system are not delivered as television channels at all. Instead, PEG cham-~els - alone among all other video channels on AT&T’s lowest priced service tier- are delivered as if part of an Internet-based system separate and unequal as compared to the full-screen format and picture resolution of other channels carried on AT&T’s basic cable tier. Commercial pro~ammers get red carpet treatment, while PEG programmers must communicate through a small door in a back alley. Attached as ]~.’daibit A to my testimony is a letter dated November 29, 2007, to AT&T from the Palo Alto Joint Powers Authority. shortcomings of AT&T’s so-called ~’PEG product." It describes the We do not believe that AT&T’s euphemistically named ’~PEG product" complies with California’s new state cable franchising law or with the FCC’s closed captioning rules. AT&T disagreed in their response (see Ex_hibit B). More importantly for our discussion Alliance for Community Media Page 7 today, AT&T does not dispute the description of the deficiencies buiit into its "PEG product" set forth in the Joint Powers Authority’s November 29 letter. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth considerably more. We have supplied you with CDs of AT&T’s so-called "PEG product." Your own eyes will reveal shortcomings that no engineering report can describe or refute as effectively. Based on correspondence, meetings and demonstrations by AT&T, we noted the following serious deficiencies in AT&T’s delivery of PEG - deficiencies that will be present in ever:y, community in which AT&T’s U-Verse system is deployed: Channel Placement. Our current PEG channels are located on channels 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 75 and 76. Yet AT&T will move al! of our PEG channels to channel 99. Submenus. Our PEG channels will be retrievable only after the subscriber scrolls through a maze of confusing menus and submenus located at channel 99. ~ Channel Latency. Merely retrieving a channel can take well over a minute--as compared to less than a second for commercia! channels. , Desraded Resolution. AT&T’s method of transforming all PEG television channels into Internet video streams means that Alliance for C0mmuni~ Media Page 8 the quality of PEG chamqels is inevitably compromised when 75% of the original picture detail is discarded. (See Exahibit C attached.) Reduced Size. When originally accessed, PEG channels will be reduced to one-quarter the screen size of all otl~er basic tier channels. The subscriber may enlarge the PEG channel by selecting the zoom option, but that exacerbates the inferior picture resolution of the PEG channel. Reduced Usefulness. The resulting loss of size and detail in the picture makes it difficult, often impossible, for a student to read written text in a lesson or for a citizen to decipher items on a city council agenda. Degraded Motion. Progams like high school football and basketball games, involving fast motion and high details, are further compromised by AT&T’s Internet streaming techniques. The end result is a viewing experience that has more in common with a YouTube clip than a standard definition TV broadcast. No Closed-Captioning. The hearing-impaired community may be prevented from accessing programs properly. Alliance for Communi~’ Media Page 9 Furthetxnore, AT&T’s lack of ciosed captioning may place PInG pro~amming at risk of violating state or 1oca! disability service requirements. No SAP Capability. All other channels are capable of providing second audio program for second tanguage translation and o~her innovative uses. This is stripped out of PEG channels in AT&T’s U-Verse. No Reeordin~ Capability. Unlike other channels on AT&T’s system, PEG channels cannot be scheduled for recording on TIVO or VCR because they are on submenus that cannot be accessed by recorders. No Last Channel/Favorite Channel Capability. The remote control cannot be used to return to the PEG channels because they are not actually channels. No Emergency Qverride. Under California law, AT&T must comply with the local emergency override requirements of the Comcast franchise until the Comcast franchise would have expired in July 2010. \~&ether AT&T can comply is unclear. It has recently asked the FCC for a waiver of the FCC’s rules concerning the emergency alert system ("EAS") because Alliance for Community Media Page 10 AT&T’s U-Verse system is apparently not yet capable of delivering state or local emergency alerts. Unlike Comcast, AT&T is unable to deliver unique programming to a local neighborhood, so would by implication be unable to deliver an emergency alert to an area more localized than the entire Bay Area. AT&T has argued that these many shortcomings must be tolerated if the competition to cable operators offered by AT&T is to be realized. It touts its . failings as benefits. -AT&T argues that since its system enables our viewers to retrieve any PEG channel in the entire Bay Area, it offsets the inferior channel quality, functionality and accessibility that our subscribers wilt suffer in retrieving and viewing their own local PEG channels. We do not share that view. By their nature, PEG channels are local. We doubt our subscribers would prefer to sacrifice the accessibility, quality and functionality of our local PEG access channels in return for being able to access PEG access channels from, for example, Walnut Creek or Oakland. The real issue is that regional accessibility has nothing to do with the degraded quality they provide us: Alliance for Community Media Page I1 Everyone in the neighboring systems sees CN2’,r and Fox and the other commercial channels - but they are still recordable and navigable. PEG should be, also. o Like AT&T’s system, Verizon’s FiOS allows everyone in a metro area to see alt PEG channels in the metro area. But unlike AT&T, Verizon’s PEG channels are on tea! channels, not pretend channels. You reach them the same way and they are the same basic quality as other commercial video channels on Veriz6n’s FiOS system. The bottom line is that AT&T has designed a system that is not in compliance with law or with the intentions of Congess. Closed Captioning. I want to add a special word about AT&T’s inability- to pass through closed-captioning on PEG channels. One ofPalo Alto’s PEG channels is an educational access channel that is programmed by DeAnza Community College. DeAnza delivers lectures, instruction and other educational material to its students, as we!l as the public, over its PEG channel. Most oft.he DeAnza channel’s pro~amming is closed captioned, as California law requires it to be. AT&T, however, will not pass through the closed captioning in DeAnza’s pro~’amming as it is delivered to AT&T. That, coupled with the reduced picture Alliance for Community Media Page 12 size and inability to record DeAnza’s pro~amming through DVR capability, would render AT&T’s carriage of the DeAnza channel essentially useless to its students. N~any of De.~nza’s programs include PowerPoint presentations and other instructional tools that wil! be unreadable a~d/or obscured by AT&T’s reduced picture formatting and open captioning. The closed captioning issue extends far beyond Palo Alto, however. Many PEG channels are closed captioned elsewhere. Government access channels in Los Angeles, California, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Portland, Oregon, for example, are closed captioned. In Los Angeles, some govermnent access pro~amming is also delivered with SAP capability, enabling viewers to hear the programming in Spanish. As in the case of closed captioning, AT&T’s "PEG product" cannot deliver SAP capability on PEG channels. AT&T’s unilateral replacement of closed captioning with always-on open captioning on PEG channels is an inadequate substitute, and blatantly discriminatory to PEG. As anyone who has ever watched captioned programming ~aows, the captioning obscures a significant part of the screen. For those viewers who do not need or want captioning, their ability to watch the programming is frustrated by open captioning. Moreover, those who need captioning often click the captioning on and oft; depending on what is going on in the programming (for example, to see a diagram or a sports replay) - something that closed, but not open, Alliance for Communi~’ Media Page 13 captioning allows them to do. Finally, AT&T does pass through closed captioning on all of the other over-the-air broadcast and commercial programming channels it carries. Only PEG is singled out for open captioning. The Broader Picture of the Threats Faein.o PEG. The tt~reats currently faced by PEG go far beyond those faced by my community in particular, or those presented by AT&T’s "PEG product" in general. Many of the new state franchising laws have no provision for protecting PEG channel capacity allocated in cable franchise agreements or increasing PEG capacity above the nuinber of currently activated channels. Some permit operators to aggregate PEG channels serving multiple con~nunities, thereby eroding the ability to provide truly local community programming. PEG funding is being eroded by new state franchising laws and the FCC’s Video Franchising Orders through reductions in franchise fees, charges to PEG centers for carriage, unreasonable restrictions on what constitutes capital support, and reductions in support from existing cable operators. In many state video franchising bills, you’ll see language that says the companies will make "reasonable, technically feasible efforts" to transmit and interconnect PEG channels. "Reasonable, technically feasible efforts" is speak. It’s an invitation to mischief. What we need are t~ee simple words, "Just Do It." Alliance for Community Media Page 14 Recent industry-pushed actions by states, and cable operators’ interpretations of them, have posed dire threats to the future of PEG. Just a fi’action of the resources that AT&T, Comcast and other companies are putting into ad campaigns and lobbying to influence the outcome of legislative changes would fund PEG access in perpetuity. It’s a big stakes game for business. We’re here to tell you that, although we lack the public relations and lobbying resources of industry, the stakes are also high for the public as well. A t~ew examples of the new threats faced by PEG centers in various states follow: Michigan Comcast’s decision to move all of its Michigan PEG channels up to the channel 900 range is another example of a disturbing pattern of industry steps that seem aimed at destroying the future of PEG. Mayor O’Reilly of Dearborn will discuss that matter in detail. I only add that, if Comcast (which happens to be the incumbent cable operator in my community) were to do the same thing in Palo Alto, it would seriously damage, if not destroy, the ability of our PEG channels to reach many of our residents. The Michigan Chapter of the Alliance for Community Media found that AT&T’s PEG picture quality is substantially reduced in quality as compared to other local programmer signals. Nonetheless, a PEG center is required by Alliance for Community Media Page 15 Michigan law to purchase expensive transmission equipment - only to have the final signal degraded by AT&T. There is no excuse for such erosion in quality for PEG access from the quality standards we enjoy on cable systems today. Elaine McLain of Clinton Township, who is a member of the Birmingham [Mt] Area Cable Board and Chair of its Cable Action Committee, says she is outraged that AT&T is using a cumbersome menu system and poor picture and audio quality to marginalize the PEG prograiaming on her U-Verse service. We have included a copy of her e-mail to the editor in our packet as Exhibit D. Following pass~.ge ofa statewide cable and video franchising law in Michigan, Comcast shut down its PEG facilities in 12 communities. Ohio Ohio’s state law went into effect in September of 2007, but you can already see the damaging effect on PEG access. In the City of Wadsworth, Ohio, Time-Warner has dropped all financial support for PEG to the tune of $138,000 per year. The Miami Valley Communications Council, which represents eight Da}~on suburbs in consortium, will be losing its institutional network on April 1 ~t of this year, thereby imposing on its municipal members over $100,000 in new capital costs to replace these services. As a result, public safety plans to connect the security cameras of the local schools to the police department have been Alliance for Communit3, Media Page 16 shelved, and the consortium is looking at the loss of more than $1 !4,000 in franchise fees and $50,000 in PEG equipment annually. In Mentor, Ohio, where AT&T has begun service, 40% of the complaints made to the city communications office in the month of January have been about AT&T’s failure to provide Mentor’s PEG access programming on its system. Da?,~con Access Television, the public access television provider for Dayton, Ohio, is facing an immediate reduction of $150,000 in its annual PEG support funding, and the city itself will see a drop of approximately 20% in franchise fees. Many communities ttvoughout Ohio will see even more damaging effects as their franchises expire and the final implementation deadline of the new Ohio law comes to pass, including loss of all PInG funding, reclamation of PEG channets that are used as text-based bulletin boards by video service providers, movement of PEG channels to the digital tier, and barriers to the creation of new PEG channels. Kansas After Kansas’s state franchising law went into effect, the City of Salinas and other Kansas communities lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in PEG support. Indiana One year after Indiana’s state franchising law went into effect, Comcast closed its PEG facilities in nine communities in the northern pa~t of the state. PEG Programming ceased in those communities on December 18, 2007. Attempts are Alliance for Community Media Page 17 being made to restart these operations, but PEG capital payments have not been made by AT&T, Verizon or Comcast. Conclusion Telephone and cable companies may represent to you that they are taking care of PEG access. But the reality doesn’t come close to that. Every day we hear more about the fallout from unilateral decisions made by video service providers about PEG carriage and funding that are made hastily and without f~!! consideration for the implications for the public. The people of this country deserve betteK As more of our media is commercialized, outsourced, regionalized and controlled by people far away from our hometowns, the local commitment of our PEG channels becomes all the more important. ’,~qaether it’s an urban neighborhood or a small tow-n, we need to have local media resources like PEG access. Congress can do one of two things: It can leave PEG access twisting in the wind at the mercy of industry’s campaign to destroy it. Or Congress can vigorously act to support and strengthen laws protecting PEG access and let industry and the FCC know that current efforts to imperil PEG will not be tolerated or allowed to stand. As you did in 1984, we look to you, our leaders in Congress, to declare your vision in 2008, to preser~e the ability of local communities to Alliance for Community Media Page 18