Fate of Public Access TV to be Decided in Six Days
Thu., Nov. 11, 2004 /public access news
Barring an unlikely reversal at next
Wednesday's Board of Estimates meeting the final
decision now rests with the City Council where they
will vote the contract up or down at a meeting the
following day
Yesterday was a rough day for public access TV advocates in Baltimore City. The Board of Estimates voted to approve the proposed Comcast contract, with some last minute amendments slipped in, ignoring compelling testimony about serious flaws and a written request from Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM) to postpone the decision one week so the amendments could be considered by BGM and others and so that a request by City Council President Dixon to BGM for a sample public access budget could be fulfilled and considered by the board.
Barring an unlikely reversal at next Wednesday's Board of Estimates meeting the final decision now rests with the City Council where they will vote the contract up or down at a meeting the following day, Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 12:30 PM in the council chambers.
One of the last-minute amendments would totally restructure the way public access would be managed. In an abrupt switch from the city's oft-stated plan to issue a request for proposals from independent groups to run public access, the amendment specifies that the mayor would appoint a 13-member board to work with his administration to form the public access entity. The Mayor already controls the Government Access channel with its $1.3 million budget. Why should he also be given control of the Public Access channel?
In another weird twist Comcast agreed in a separate document, not made available, to pay an additional $430,000 to Youth Works Summer Employment Program with the understanding that the city would direct this same amount to public access. This would bring the total training grant to $1 million to be doled out over the proposed 12 years of the contract. However, the mayor later said that he could not guarantee directing the $430,000 to public access.
We were told Comcast insisted on this shell game so as not to set a precedent where they would be seen giving too much to public access. This is ridiculous. There is already a precedent in Washington, DC where their 2002 cable contract directs 1.33% of Comcast's gross revenue, in addition to the 5% franchise fee, to the public access corporation. In Baltimore this would amount to $1.15 million per year for public access.
Comcast is acting like their agreement to give a relatively tiny amount is so wonderful, but it is not even in the contract, and it was negotiated in exchange for the city giving up four of our current 12 cable access channels to Comcast. Comcast's own estimates put the value of these four channels over the 12 years of the contract at $77 million! Why would the city give up these valuable public assets for so little?
Please write letters to newspapers, call in to radio shows and email or call your council members (http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/members.htm) to tell them to vote this proposed contract down because:
1. The contract does not even come close to providing adequate funding for Public Access as other cities have. DC public access had 2003 revenue of $2 million, most of it from the cable contract.
2. The proposed contract gives four of our current 12 cable access channels to Comcast, who values these channels at $77 million over the 12 years of the contract, in exchange for almost nothing!
3. The length of the contract is too long in this rapidly changing industry and according to Jeff Chester, Director of the Center for Digital Democracy, there have been calls for a "nationwide campaign to advocate for a new federal policy that ensures that communities can effectively benefit from the digital age, and that monopolies like Comcast are required to operate in a more open and democratic fashion."
4. At their October 13, 2004 meeting the Mayor's Cable Communications Advisory Commission unanimously voted to oppose the proposed contract.
5. There is no mention of a facility for Public Access. Other municipalities, for example Arlington Co. Virginia, specify this in the contract.
6. The proposed structure of the public access corporation shifts control from the public to the mayor.
7. The mayor's channel has a $1.3 million annual budget. It should not be more than the public channels budget.
8. Public Access needs more than one channel.
9. There has not been a fair opportunity for the public to comment on the amendments.
10. Comcast gets an exception where their failure to meet minority business goals cannot result in termination of the contract as it does with other contracts with the city.
Please CC any letters to the editor or emails you send to info@baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org and contact us with any ideas you have. Join us at our next meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 7 PM at Unity United Methodist Church, 1433 Edmondson Ave.
Baltimore Grassroots Media
www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org
Info@baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org
410-779-2184
Yesterday was a rough day for public access TV advocates in Baltimore City. The Board of Estimates voted to approve the proposed Comcast contract, with some last minute amendments slipped in, ignoring compelling testimony about serious flaws and a written request from Baltimore Grassroots Media (BGM) to postpone the decision one week so the amendments could be considered by BGM and others and so that a request by City Council President Dixon to BGM for a sample public access budget could be fulfilled and considered by the board.
Barring an unlikely reversal at next Wednesday's Board of Estimates meeting the final decision now rests with the City Council where they will vote the contract up or down at a meeting the following day, Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 12:30 PM in the council chambers.
One of the last-minute amendments would totally restructure the way public access would be managed. In an abrupt switch from the city's oft-stated plan to issue a request for proposals from independent groups to run public access, the amendment specifies that the mayor would appoint a 13-member board to work with his administration to form the public access entity. The Mayor already controls the Government Access channel with its $1.3 million budget. Why should he also be given control of the Public Access channel?
In another weird twist Comcast agreed in a separate document, not made available, to pay an additional $430,000 to Youth Works Summer Employment Program with the understanding that the city would direct this same amount to public access. This would bring the total training grant to $1 million to be doled out over the proposed 12 years of the contract. However, the mayor later said that he could not guarantee directing the $430,000 to public access.
We were told Comcast insisted on this shell game so as not to set a precedent where they would be seen giving too much to public access. This is ridiculous. There is already a precedent in Washington, DC where their 2002 cable contract directs 1.33% of Comcast's gross revenue, in addition to the 5% franchise fee, to the public access corporation. In Baltimore this would amount to $1.15 million per year for public access.
Comcast is acting like their agreement to give a relatively tiny amount is so wonderful, but it is not even in the contract, and it was negotiated in exchange for the city giving up four of our current 12 cable access channels to Comcast. Comcast's own estimates put the value of these four channels over the 12 years of the contract at $77 million! Why would the city give up these valuable public assets for so little?
Please write letters to newspapers, call in to radio shows and email or call your council members (http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/members.htm) to tell them to vote this proposed contract down because:
1. The contract does not even come close to providing adequate funding for Public Access as other cities have. DC public access had 2003 revenue of $2 million, most of it from the cable contract.
2. The proposed contract gives four of our current 12 cable access channels to Comcast, who values these channels at $77 million over the 12 years of the contract, in exchange for almost nothing!
3. The length of the contract is too long in this rapidly changing industry and according to Jeff Chester, Director of the Center for Digital Democracy, there have been calls for a "nationwide campaign to advocate for a new federal policy that ensures that communities can effectively benefit from the digital age, and that monopolies like Comcast are required to operate in a more open and democratic fashion."
4. At their October 13, 2004 meeting the Mayor's Cable Communications Advisory Commission unanimously voted to oppose the proposed contract.
5. There is no mention of a facility for Public Access. Other municipalities, for example Arlington Co. Virginia, specify this in the contract.
6. The proposed structure of the public access corporation shifts control from the public to the mayor.
7. The mayor's channel has a $1.3 million annual budget. It should not be more than the public channels budget.
8. Public Access needs more than one channel.
9. There has not been a fair opportunity for the public to comment on the amendments.
10. Comcast gets an exception where their failure to meet minority business goals cannot result in termination of the contract as it does with other contracts with the city.
Please CC any letters to the editor or emails you send to info@baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org and contact us with any ideas you have. Join us at our next meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 7 PM at Unity United Methodist Church, 1433 Edmondson Ave.
Baltimore Grassroots Media
www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org
Info@baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org
410-779-2184