🚀 go-pugleaf

Three months ago I posted information about Time-Warner Communications
plan to cut back on local public access television channels 10, 11 and
16, as well as the Austin Music Network.  My information came from a
reliable source inside Time-Warner, and was later reported in the April
4 edition of the Austin Chronicle.

While I appreciated the Chronicle coverage, I felt that more could have
been done to investigate.  Most of their sources denied that this
situation existed, but qualified their statements by basically
acknowledging that everything I said was true.  Stuart Heady, chair of
the local cable commission, called my post "bullshit," then immediately
added "but it was motivated by a real discussion."  While this is just
the sort of double-talk I would expect from a small-time politician, it
does little for the people he serves, and in the months following, it
seems he's done even less.  Later in the same column he states that
"there's a lot of interest in keeping the Music Network alive."  Well,
since the proposed city budget eliminates funding for the Austin Music
Network altogether (according the July 10th issue of the Chronicle),
which is exactly what I said would happen, which one of us is the one
making up "bullshit"?

I was more impressed with the comments of Paul Smollen, at the city
regulatory office, who admitted that my post was true.  He called it "a
mixture of current goings-on and history that is taken out of context" -
which is not entirely accurate, but at least a lot closer than Mr.
Heady's comments.  Mr. Smollen also noted that Time Warner has "never
been happy with access or the music channel - we have the contractual
potential for as many as 13 [access] channels, and they see that as them
giving away a good portion of their real estate."  This was precisely my
point - people wonder why Time-Warner doesn't add more quality or
premium channels to their basic line-up, and the reason is because they
CAN'T.  They HAVE to set aside the bandwidth for as many as 13 access
channels, with only a few of them in actual use.  They see themselves in
a position where, for example, they can't put M2 (an MTV channel that
could make them a lot of money) onto our line-up, because its space is
taken up with Austin Music Network, a commercial-free and
public-subidized channel.  They see this as bad business, and they'd
like to get out of this obligation, and that's what they're trying to
do, and the city is HELPING them.

One thing I do need to correct the Chronicle on - in the same article,
they mentioned "this week's Supreme Court decision upholds a mandate
that cable companies _must_ carry local programming."  The Supreme Court
decision in question said no such thing.  It mandated that cable
companies MUST carry local BROADCAST channels for local BROADCAST
stations - in our case, Fox 7, KVUE, KXAN, KEYE, and KNVA.  Public
Access channels and the Austin Music Network are all CABLECAST.  They
are NOT independent, network-affiliated broadcast stations that are
licensed and regulated by the FCC, and so Time-Warner does NOT have to
carry them.  There is NO Supreme Court mandate that cable companies MUST
provide access channels - this is all arranged on a city-by-city, or
franchise-by-franchise, basis, and in most cities where Time-Warner
holds a franchise, there IS no public access.

Furthermore, from what I've seen, nobody on any public access shows seem
to have taken the whole situation very lightly at all, least of all the
people who run the facility.  Anybody who watches public access or the
Music Network regularly will probably have noticed just how worried
people are about the future of public access.  The whole definition of
"commercial promotion," which is prohibited on public access channels,
has been broadly expanded by Time-Warner to include such things as
mentioning the names of stores or the hosts place of employment, or
telling which clubs a particular band will be playing, or even
mentioning their CDs.  There's also a weekly show (I can't remember its
name - something like "The PSA dude") which is basically an infomercial
for public access TV, and this year's Access Awards ceremony was
carefully choreagraphed to give the impression of broad community
support and participation, when, unfortunately, only a handful of people
attended, and only a small minority actually produces any programming. 
You can tell these people are worried for their jobs, as well they
should be.  The situation with the Austin Music Network is ONLY the
beginning.

Because Time-Warner must follow the city's instructions over public
access TV, Time-Warner is working closely with city staff and council to
find a solution to what both consider a problem.  The city needs money -
its expecting a $30 million budget shortfall this year, and that's one
of the reasons AMN has been (and will be) cut.  Time-Warner needs
additional channel space to bring its Austin francise in-line with its
other franchises in terms of profitability.

Currently Time-Warner charges each cable subscriber both a flat-rate
"franchise fee," which goes to the city, and a "public access
surcharge," which funds public access.  In future negotiations,
Time-Warner will propose COMBINING both of these now-separate fees into
ONE franchise fee, which would go directly to the city's general fund. 
Public Access TV would then have to go through the same funding battles
as all OTHER city departments on a YEAR-BY-YEAR basis (just like what's
happening now with the Austin Music Network), rather than being insured
a steady funding source.

Furthermore, rather than charging a FLAT franchise fee to ALL
subscribers, Time-Warner will propose charging each customer a
PERCENTAGE of their overall bill, with the MINIMUM being the same as the
current franchise and access fees.  So customers who get the "value"
package or the "full-service" package, would pay a higher fee (even
though it's the same PERCENTAGE) than people with the "basic" package. 
What makes this a good deal for both sides is this:  For every access
channel that the city GIVES UP, and for every channel and "pricing
package" that Time-Warner is able to add, the city will get MORE MONEY. 
Under this pricing structure, if the city was to give up JUST THE ACCESS
CHANNELS IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY USE, it would bring in several times what
it currently does from its cable franchise fee, possibly even enough to
cover its current budget shortfall.  It's easy to see why this would be
an attractive offer, and why I personally believe public access IS in
serious jeapordy.

For those who are interested in helping, probably the best thing you
could do right now would be to voice your support for the Austin Music
Network in this summer's budget planning sessions at the city council. 
It might already be too late to save AMN, but at least it might make the
city council think twice before cutting more public access channels. 
Local media (especially the Chronicle) should also devote time and
resources to investigating this matter - its taken almost 25 years to
build our local public access resources up to the level of
best-in-the-nation, and it would be a tragedy to let corporate and
political greed destroy what has become such a valuable resource for ALL
citizens, NOT just those who produce and watch the local access
programming.

Thank you for your interest.