1 “Reinventing PEG Access” Hans Klein Georgia Institute of Technology Pre-conference Workshop: “Access Future” With Pat Garlinghouse, George Stoney, Garth Jowett Alliance for Community Media 2005 Annual Conference Monterey California 6-9 July 2005

2 The Speaker Cambridge Community Television –Board member ( ) Community Media Review –Guest editor (1996) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) ( ) Telecommunications Policy Advisory Committee (TelePAC) (Atlanta, 2005) –“Reinventing PEG Access” – Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3)

3 Thesis PEG access has been a … disappointment Change is coming –Telecom act Reinvent PEG Access –In order to survive –In order to realize the vision Nagging question –Is it needed?

4 Outline I. The vision II.The Technology III.The PEG model IV.A Critique V. New technology VI. Reinventing PEG Institutional design Regulatory strategy

5 The Vision

6 What Are We Trying To Achieve? Distinguish vision from what exists –What we seek to achieve –How well has it been achieved Multiplicity of visions

7 Direct Access Media create images of society –Wealth, race, attitudes –Significant omissions Intermediaries –Interests –power Direct Access –People represent themselves –No intermediaries –Content is left to the people

8 Localism Mass media are controlled by distant corporations Give citizens a vision of their own community By community for community

9 First Amendment Forum Individuals Get a voice “Electronic soapbox” –“A loud voice on a busy corner” Focus is on producer

10 Social Change Media empowers and transforms Linked to activism –Empower individuals –Empower community groups

11 Diversity of Information Important for Democracy Many different perspectives

12 II. The Technology: Cable Television

13 Costly Video technology Even if no dollar costs –Still expensive Large time costs –To produce –To view

14 Real Time Information is temporal –Comes and then is gone Viewer –Must adjust to programming schedule –Must invest fixed block of time Difficult to view

15 Local Monopoly “Natural monopoly” –Too expensive for multiple networks Cables need rights of way –Local regulation

16 Emotive Power Power medium –Emotional impact on viewer But costly to achieve –Sophisticated directing Most accessible format: –“talking head” –Lacking in emotive power An un-emotive medium

17 III. The PEG Model

18 Funding Incredibly successful Abundant –Atlanta: $50,000 per month –Others: $100,000 per month –Nationwide – how much? $100 million per year? Stable –15-year franchises Insulated from competition –Paid directly to access station

19 Functions Operate channel(s) Training Equipment Open to all local residents

20 IV. Critique

21 Inaccessible to Viewers Real-time technology –Hard to schedule viewing Costly –Time-consuming to view Few program guides –No map of real-time content Low emotive content –Lots of talking heads

22 Little Used By Activists Costly to use –Production is difficult Low viewership –Doesn’t reach community

23 Creates Managerial Class Station managers Differentiated interests –Salary –Administrative expenses Conservative –Preserve the institution –Don’t rock the boat Expensive conferences

24 Creates a Producer Class Does not empower all community groups Rather, creates a single new community group –The public access producer Particular interest –Video production Producers are not the community

25 Direct Access Compromised Station staff mediates producers –Programming guide –Costs of training –Class offerings –Annual program schedule Producers mediate community –Report on what others do –Emphasize some topics religion Community activists do little direct video

26 Insulated From Change Excessive autonomy –Yes, from the power structure –But also from community Funding is too stable? –Rare threat to finances –Little need to adapt Monopoly position –No competitive offering

27 Localism – A Mixed Blessing Inclusion –Empower the local community Exclusion –Don’t carry external programming

28 Worst Case Scenario Lots of public funding Supporting a professional staff And a very small group of producers With very few viewers And very little community impact Irrelevant? A missed opportunity

29 Problem is the Model, Not the People With video technology… …and the local monopoly model… … such an outcome is hard to avoid. Not blaming the ACM or its members. But: after 30 years… ….. still possible to realize the vision.

30 V. New Technology

31 Digital Technology Makes community media possible What is it –All media are digital files Music, video, telephone, photos, newspapers, books –All channels are the Internet broadband

32 Characteristics Not real time –Viewer need not adapt –“on demand” Low cost –Often free Easy to use –Anyone can do it Almost here –Still a few years until total ease of use –Costs drop –Digital divide Widely available –Market supplies it

33 Today’s Uses Direct Access First Amendment Forum Social Change Diversity of Information

34 Does Not Fully Replace TV Localism –Not excluded –But not prioritized Emotive content –Video is still better (when done right)

35 VI. Reinventing PEG

36 Is There a Role for PEG? Or does market suffice?

37 Preserve PEG Funding $100 million per year A lot of public interest media money!

38 Move to Digital Technology The better technology for the vision –Not an alternative to cable TV –A complement Allows outreach to viewers –Newsletter –Interactive program guide

39 Use Cable TV Where It Works Best Real time programming –Call in shows Emotive qualities –“high quality” production –Imported programming Similar to community radio model

40 Broaden Our Concept of “Community” Community of Place –Localism –Served by existing PEG model Community of Interest –May be global –Served by imported programming (Source: George Stoney)

41 New Focus: Digital Inclusion Overcome the digital divide Train activists in digital media Make servers available Make equipment available