Home | Directory | Programs | PATV | National Producer's Forum | FREE Membership | Contact Information | RSS

click to email

The History of Public Access Television
by Douglas Kellner

Public access television is one of the most exciting and controversial U.S. media developments within the past two decades. Beginning in the 1970s, cable systems began to offer access channels to the public, so that groups and individuals could make programs for other individuals in their own communities. Access systems began to proliferate and access programming is now being cablecast regularly in such places as New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Madison, Urbana, Austin, and perhaps as many as 1,200 other towns or regions.

When cable television began to be widely introduced in the early 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated in 1972 that "beginning in 1972, new cable systems (and after 1977, all cable systems) in the 100 largest television markets be required to provide channels for government, for educational purposes, and most importantly, for public access." This mandate suggested that cable systems should make available three public access channels to be used for state and local government, education, and community public access use. "Public access" was construed to mean that the cable company should make available equipment and air time so that literally anybody could make noncommercial use of the access channel, and say and do anything they wished on a first-come, first-served basis, subject only to obscenity and libel laws. The result was an entirely different sort of programming, reflecting the interests of groups and individuals usually excluded from mainstream television.

The rationale for public access television was that, as mandated by the Federal Communications Act of 1984, the airwaves belong to the people, that in a democratic society it is useful to multiply public participation in political discussion, and that mainstream television severely limited the range of views and opinion. Public access television, then, would open television to the public, it would make possible community participation, and thus would be in the public interest of strengthening democracy.
Adobe Creative Cloud Creating an access system required, in many cases, setting up a local organization to manage the access channels, though in other systems the cable company itself managed the access center. In the beginning, however, few, if any, cable systems made as many as three channels available, but some systems began offering one or two access channels in the early to mid-1970s. The availability of access channels depended, for the most part, on the political clout of local governments and committed, and often unpaid, local groups to convince the cable companies, almost all privately owned, to make available an access channel. A 1979 Supreme Court decision, however, struck down the 1972 FCC ruling on the grounds that the FCC had no authority to mandate access, an authority which supposedly belongs to the U.S. Congress alone. Nonetheless, cable was expanding so rapidly and becoming such a high-growth competitive industry that by the 1980s city governments considering cable systems were besieged by companies making lucrative offers (20 to 80 channel cable systems) and were able to demand access channels and financial support for public access systems as part of their contract negotiations. Consequently, public access grew significantly during the 1980s and 1990s.

Not surprisingly, public access television has been controversial from the beginning. Early disputes revolved around explicit sexuality and obscenity, particular in New York city public access schedules with programs like "Ugly George" and "Midnight Blue" drawing attention. Focus then turned to controversial political content when extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation began distributing programs nationally. Many groups like the American Atheists, labor groups, and a diverse number of political groups began producing programs for syndication, and debates emerged over whether access systems should show programming that was not actually produced in the community where it was originally cablecast.

Despite the controversy, public access television is currently thriving. A very few systems charge money for use of facilities, or charge a fee for use of air time, but due to competitive bidding among cable systems in the 1980s and 1990s for the most lucrative franchises, many cable systems offer free use of equipment, personnel, and air time, and occasionally even provide free videotapes. In these situations, literally anyone can make use of public access facilities without technical expertise, television experience, or financial resources.

Many public access systems also offer a range of conceptual and technical training programs designed to instruct groups or individuals who wish to make their own programs from conception through final editing. As video equipment costs have rapidly declined it has even become possible for some groups to purchase their own equipment.

In the 1990s, following the trends of talk radio, many talk television access shows emerged. Individuals fielded calls from members of the community, and discussed current political problems, or, in some cases, personal problems. In many ways, this "conversational" mode exemplified the community focus and personal orientation of access television, again moving away from mainstream TV designed to reach the largest possible audiences.

But various actions moving toward greater media deregulation in the 1990s threaten the continued survival of access, as do the Internet and other new communications technologies. In a highly competitive environment, cable systems may very well close down access systems if there is insufficient government pressure to keep them open, though competitive market pressures might promote the survival of popular access channels. And while the Internet, and other emerging delivery systems could render obsolete the relatively low-tech access systems, these same forms of communication may even multiply access television, enabling literally any group or individual to make their television programs and distribute them over the Internet. Thus, the future of access is uncertain and is bound up with the unforeseeable consequences of what may be one of the most dramatic communications revolutions in history.

- Douglas Kellner
PEG Challenges
courtesy of... en.wikipedia.org

Your Data, Your Way. Get full control of your data with ServaRICA storage servers. PEG television has come under fire from many sources including cable tv providers, local governments and officials, producers, viewers, and even corporate litigations from potential copyright infringements. Special interest groups have also frequently applied pressure on PEG operations.

PEG often struggles to balance freedom of speech with free, open access to the cable systems and as a result cable operators or PEG organizations have occasionally (rightfully or wrongfully) banned producers, discriminated between programming in their allocation of airtime, or have removed or banned programming based upon potential legal problems, the values of the PEG organization, or the values or desires of the cable tv provider.

Funding for PEG is usually managed from local governments issuing the franchise agreement. This same government often receives franchise fees that come from the cable companies. Negotiation for PEG television services can be often be hindered by obstructive or restricting behavior from the cable company, a competing cable provider, or the government officials and staff issuing the franchise agreement.

PEG television has been challenged by cable TV and telephone companies, who are now expanding into the cable TV business. These companies have lobbied for significant legislation through the US House of Representatives and through various state assemblies to reduce or end PEG television.

In California, the passage of AB2987 or "The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006", has drastically changed the laws by which cable tv companies must operate, and as a result, many public access studios in that state have closed.

Municipalities, local governments and even residents often confuse the difference between commercial broadcast television and PEG television. PEG television has been reported to the FCC about infractions that may apply to broadcast television, even though cable television content (including public access television) is not subject to the same rules. Because cable television is a closed system with elective access there are fewer rules and restrictions about content.

PEG television stations and studios are sometimes poorly managed and/or poorly supported, and give rise to numerous complaints. Station complaints range from poor scheduling and playback, programming playing late or not at all, or signal strength being so weak that the program becomes unwatchable. Studio complaints usually focus on the lack of equipment or facilities, poor equipment condition, and staff indifference. Accusations are often made that these situations arose as a result of willful neglect on the part of a city, a cable company, or other third party organization, with the intention of making the public access facilities so inviable that interest in them will wane and facilities can be closed. Complaints may also reflect viewers' general disagreement with other people's viewpoints. Complaints may also reflect discrimination in the resources a PEG organization applies to one type of programming vs. another.

Another challenge in maintaining public access facilities as a free speech forum can come from within the membership of the PEG facility itself, by the overuse of commercial video programmers whose program content contains Sponsorship Underwriting Advertisements like the type permitted on Public Broadcasting Stations. Programming could then become very similar to other cable channels and programming without such sponsorship could be deprived of fair treatment by the administrators of a Public Access Facility.

democracy demands media reform: freepress.net

  Eaglewing Enterprises Creative Services

Home | Directory | Programs | PATV | National Producer's Forum | FREE Membership | Contact Information | RSS

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional letsencrypt.org Website Accessability Compliance Certification ©2000 Eaglewing Enterprises Creative Services