Peace,
Pam Colby
Executive Director
MTN

Stakeholders in this issue have not been brought to the table for an in-depth discussion of options and how to pay for them….

All- I’ve changed up the post a lot now that I’ve learned more. I’ve talked with a bunch more people and my, what a serious mess this is. Wow. I don’t think I want to even be involved in the discussion anymore. Just don’t cut MTN’s budget!

Peter- I edited a couple bits of my post to remove portions that imply USI Wireless is getting any of the $100,000 in question… and I guess it’s Catherine Settanni that’s getting the $100,000 to develop… THIS?? ?!!?

Peter and Cheryl- Thanks for filling in a lot of gaps on this issue, I really appreciate it. It helps a lot.

http://saveaccess.org/node/1767

http://rghm.wordpress.com/

http://baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/
article is 1/3 down page-Hearing …net neutrality bill.

http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/digital_destiny/broadband_strategies

There is a national flurry of activity on a state-by-state level..save public access groups are increasing. They just lost in Wisconsin and it looks like redlining will be allowed (some rural wisconsin areas will be uncovered).

The cable, telecommunications and servers were unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted from congress a couple of years ago. They have mounted an extensive and expensive campaign on a state-by-state basis. The FCC is developing some new interal administrative rules that will not go to Congress and are not favorable to public access.

While the media conglomerates are competing against each other for favorable treatment and new markets…they seem to have public access in their target range.

Some of this legislation also involves having the state, not the municipalities, negotiate service which would eliminate the corporate incentive to provide community benefit packages. Also legislation to allow cable/telecom/net’s to renig on municipal contracts if it is warranted by market and economic conditions…Save money by eliminating city requirements, re-negotiate fees and free up public access channels/sites for commercial use.
Google ‘fcc and public access’..save public access groups…Manhattan has an active one as do Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa…
Bill Moyers is on one video..i’ll see if i can find the website.

Provider will, at the written request of the DITF, create and develop up to ninety (90) location based community log-in sites and associated templates for City neighborhoods that will allow free access to selected government sites, community service sites, CTC sites, neighborhood associations, and local event calendars; as well as offer a platform for localized advertising. The community log-in sites will include multi-lingual functionality common to the community. Provider will provide tools and processes as well as technical support for developing and implementing community content; and contract with City- approved consultant to oversee interface design, content development, and training for community groups.

Provider will provide a “walled garden” as a free level of service throughout the City. The walled garden service will provide limited access to the internet to access City web pages and related City and governmental information.

From pages 6 & 7. I have the contract available for download at http://pfhyper.com/

I want to clarify that none of the $100K will go to US Internet. USI is actually putting up some money in support of the community portal system.

According to Catherine Settanni (under contract with the City and working on the portals), the money would fund the following:

1. Design, development, and build out the Community Portal websites

2. Training for the 13+ NRP defined neighborhood organizations that currently have no web presence

3. Building and testing interactive applications that would allow 2-way interaction between city residents and City staff and elected officials;

4. Supporting the development of other portal applications recommended public meetings (such as community calendars)

I would argue that numbers 3 & 4 could wait and frankly $100K would be stretched pretty thin to cover those along with 1 & 2. (Number 4 scares me a bit in wondering if they are looking at reinventing wheels instead of using what’s available — hopefully open source).

The question is where will any money come from to support the portal system. MTN produces local content today. I don’t want to seriously impair them to fund an unknown quantity. It would be nice if a plan, timeline, and some technical details of the community portal system were shared with the community.

“Other Cable Act provisions designed to increase the variety of programming choices, such as PEG access, must-carry, and program access rules, remain applicable to open video systems.”

From The 1996 Telecommunications Act

I think what you’re looking for regarding is Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992

Right, but what I’ve heard that there is something that may change regarding these acts in the future or some new legislation that may change how PEG is funded in the future.

I think what you’re looking for regarding is Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 See also, What is PEG
—–

A requirement of reasonable third-party access top cable systems
will mean a wide diversity of information sources for the public
— the fundamental goal of the First Amendment — without the need
to regulate the content of programming provided over cable….

Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the
speaker’s soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed
leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have
not had access to electronic media with the opportunity to become
sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas.
PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing
local schools into the home, and by showing the public local
government at work.(7)

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 further explained the rationale:

Leased access and public access programming uniquely allow
individuals and groups to communicate their messages to the
general public. Educational access allows local schools to
supplement classroom learning and to reach out to teach those who
are beyond school age or unable to attend classes. The government
channel allows for a local “mini-C-SPAN,” thus contributing to an
informed electorate, essential to the proper functioning of
government.(8)