THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, PEOPLE OF WORCESTER.

Last night, March 19th, WCCA met with members of the city council's Public Service and Transportation Committee to discuss WCCA's operational and capital needs for the next five years.

Councilors Joe Petty, Gary Rosen and William Eddy were very receptive and expressed their support for WCCA. Gary Rosen passionately expressed that he hopes to be joined by all his colleagues on the council in a call for assurances to ensure WCCA will continue the valuable level of service and to meet future community media needs.

Congratulations to YOU, Worcester. Thanks to the people and organizations of Worcester for the tremendous outpouring of support and encouragement you have given to WCCA TV over the past years. You have have helped us with your letters, editorials, post cards, petitions, attendance at cable meetings, and your many phone calls to city leaders. Because of your efforts, the city was able to negotiate a decent contract with Charter. The city will soon be receiving the funding and capital needed to continue WCCA TV's public access mission.

Now WCCA's funding and its future lies in the hands of City Manager Michael O'Brien. It is up to him to allocate funding pursuant to YOUR needs as ascertained by the city. YOU have spoken at those public hearings and through YOUR letters, before the PS&T and Cable Advisory committees. Both Committees echoed your request for increased funding, equipment capital and additional channel for WCCA TV “The People's Channel”, YOUR VISION TELEVISION. The city has been sensitive to all of our voices and, so far, to the needs of public access.

Your continued support is more vital now than ever. Please continue those calls and letters to our councilors and the City Manager.

Stay alert for upcoming public hearings regarding the future of WCCA. Sign up for our WCCA mailing list. Together, we may be able to convince the Manager to see to it that WCCA sustains at least the current level of service and community productions. We must press on together. That is what makes this truly "the people's channel".

Sincerely on behalf of the Volunteers, Community Producers, Interns, KidsNet/Youth Channel Students, Community Board, and Staff, Thank you.
Mauro DePasquale

WCCA has been very vocal about the damages of such legislation. It is amazing how deaf to reason the political world can be. Go to the sunlight foundation and check out who is being paid off by cable and phone lobbyist. Then it may become apparent why legislation and other government actions diminish all that has been accomplished in PUBLIC ACCESS in past years through local cable franchises.
Feel free to share your findings here at WCCA's website.
READ MORE:

http://www.natoa.org/2008/03/natoa-survey-impact-of-state-v.html

NATOA Survey: Impact of State Video Services Legislation
March 5, 2008 11:10 AM
Impact of State Video Services Legislation
Early Results Do Not Evidence Sufficient Competitive Benefits

Alexandria , VA – The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) today released results of a preliminary survey it conducted among its members to obtain a snapshot of the impact state video services legislation has had to date on communities and subscribers. While state video franchising is still a relatively new concept, the survey posed questions regarding its effects on competition, rates and services, PEG (Public, Educational and Governmental) access, and consumer complaints. Responses came from 14 of the states which have adopted state video legislation. A total of 139 Local Franchising Authorities (LFAs), representing 10 million cable subscribers (15% of cable subscribers nationwide), participated in the survey.

The results of the survey indicate that incumbent cable providers are taking advantage of the change in law, with one third of respondents indicating that the incumbent had abandoned its local franchise for one issued by the state. New entrants are seeking only state franchises. In franchise areas affected by state legislation, 27% of participants report one new entrant, and 6% report more than one new entrant in operation. Thirty-five percent (35%) of LFAs report the new entrant has not built anything; 48% report the new entrant has built out to part of the community; while only 18% report that the new entrant is in the process of or has built out to the entire community.

As a result of these changes, NATOA was disappointed to learn that under state legislation thus far:

* Rates have not decreased according to 98% of those surveyed.

* Incumbent basic rates have increased $1.12 for analog and $1.51 for digital

* Most new entrants do not market a Basic Service Tier nor report rates, which makes consumer comparison shopping difficult at best.

* Consumer complaints remain high with 74% of respondents reporting the same level of complaints, except as they relate to the availability of choice of provider

* The majority of LFAs reported that on incumbent systems, the number of PEG (Public, Educational and Governmental) access channels has remained constant (97%) and that the technical quality has remained the consistent (89%). PEG channel positions on new entrant systems were reported as different from the incumbents by 39% with worse or poor technical quality reported by 36% on new entrant systems. PEG funding was the same for 44% of the LFAs, whereas funding increased for 12% and actually decreased for 22% of respondents.

* Overall, 82% of LFAs do not believe that state video legislation is having a positive impact on their community; 90% believe that PEG programming is not being treated in an equitable manner by new entrants; and 97% believe that customer service has not improved under state supervision.

“We were anxious to get this first snap shot and to set the bar against which future data can be collected and judged,” said NATOA Executive Director Libby Beaty. “Clearly, this legislation is very new in many places, and only time will tell whether, once implementation is complete, it will prove to have benefited consumers more than the corporations that sought the legislative changes. We are hopeful that it is the consumer who will win, but clearly it’s too soon to see those benefits yet. State legislation just out of the gate is not resulting in price reduction, the primary reason used to justify state over local regulation.”

Read the Executive Summary of the Survey Here.
Contact: Libby Beaty, Executive Director, 703-519-8035

Why a long term cable contract would be a smarter option.
Unlike typical city related contracts, a cable franchise agreement is a strategic telecommunication opportunity. The city's long term plan telecom plan requires a long term infrastructure, thus a long term agreement.

Read the filed Editorial.

It just takes city leadership to fight for it.

During the cable franchise ascertainment period, WCCA held a focus group as part of the process. Respondents cited the need for WCCA to be seen outside of Worcester, in neighboring communities as their number one recommendation for improving WCCA services.

Subsequently, in consideration to our community needs assessment, WCCA has asked the city of Worcester to consider requesting that Charter Communication, the cable provider, allow us to distribute WCCA's channel county wide (on any available channel).

This would bring substantial value for Worcester citizens and for those who work in Worcester but live outside of it. During public hearings, at City Hall, Charter representatives said it could not be done. WCCA believed that it was technically possible. We pointed out that it is done in other areas. we've been hoping the new cable contract, which expired in 2006, will address this. We are still without a contract.

Jump ahead about two years. This afternoon, a resident of Paxton phoned us today asking for a way to view WCCA programing in Paxton. They also asked about our facilitation of the council meeting, which we partner with volunteers from Indymedia, to facilitate archiving it on line. During the conversation I learned that, for quite some time, Paxton cablecast the Worcester Public School cable channel 11 on its own Paxton system. Another resident of Paxton later confirmed this to be true. As Marvin Gaye sings it, “What's going on?” All the time this has been going on and no one brought this to the city's attention? Did anyone realize that if it can be done with one channel it could be done with others. WCCA TV programming could really be an asset to our city, if supported properly.

With sixty-eight percent of the participants of our focus group ( Worcester business and organizations) having less than $10,000 per year for communications, these groups and agencies face interesting challenges. Imagine WCCA's programming promoting all that is Worcester and helping all these community groups reach out to surrounding communities. Wouldn't that be useful to our cultural groups, event promoters, business'?
Here is a chance for our leaders to really step up and do something great. WCCA TV county wide before it's too late.

HERE IS WHY:
URGENT January 28, 2008

RE: Council Meeting Item: Reconsider against shortest term possible for the cable franchise renewal with Charter.

Please reconsider this request. There are many benefits to a local cable franchise authority including the asset of PEG channels that will be at risk in the balance.

Looming proposed legislation lobbied by major telecom companies threaten to eliminate municipal cable franchise authority. WCCA has presented extensive information on this subject on it's website
wccatv.com/save access

So fare with the help of a nation and state wide effort including support form various municipal groups and associations we were successful in holding such potentially damaging legislation at bay.

If the lobbyist are successful Cable Franchise licenses will be terminated either immediately or immediately upon the expiration of the current franchise. In such a case, is it worthwhile to let our frustrations and disappointment with a company such as Charter Communications, ruin the opportunity to sustain franchise assets currently benefiting our city and it's citizens?

We suggest a long term franchise written with strong language to enforce and ensure the needs of the city and it's community (including our PEG channels) and consumers are met on a timely basis.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

Mass Access Highlights of the proposed bill sponsored by Verizon:

The bill transfers license approval from municipalities to the State, allowing the state 15 days for state level review and approval. (Section 4(D))

State review would be superficial at best with only 15 days to review a license application.
There is no provision in the bill for public hearings or public input.

The bill provides that if the cable license application is complete, it must be approved.
(Section 4(D))

The bill ties government's hands, as the State must approve the application if it is a complete application. Thus the bill provides NO mechanism for state or local negotiation of better terms regarding service area or provision of Institutional Network. Therefore a new company can pick and choose ("cherry pick") which neighborhoods it serves, and neither the state nor the municipality can negotiate better terms. There is no provision for negotiation of Institutional Networks or other community-specific benefits.

In a radical departure from decades of prior law, the bill does not provide for any state review of the qualifications of a new cable company. This would be very problematic with respect to new entrants that do not have proven qualifications. Unqualified, high risk, speculative companies could apply for and take over the last remaining pole and street space available for this important service.

Even the process of license transfer approval is eliminated so the cable licensee can transfer its system to any entity, without any public hearing or public input. (Section 4(G))

The bill provides that cable operators would pay the municipality a franchise fee not to exceed a total of 5% of "gross revenues" as defined by the bill, and as established by the municipality. (Section 7(B)). However, the bill is harsh on existing public access facilities, as follows. Although the new company would initially have to match the incumbent company's support for public, educational and governmental (PEG) access, the bill specifically provides that when the incumbent cable operator's franchise expires, then such PEG Access support shall not exceed 1% of the franchise holder's gross revenues. (See Section 8(C)). This could result in loss of funding to PEG Access facilities depending on how other franchise fees are allocated. In any event, because there is no requirement that Verizon negotiate or match other Comcast obligations, e.g., service area or INet obligations, Comcast would seek reductions of PEG obligations so that it would operate in "level playing field" conditions, as discussed below.

Existing Comcast licenses all provide that if Verizon (or any cable competitor) does not match what Comcast is providing, Comcast may seek relief and reduce what it is currently providing, going down to the competitor's level of local support. As the new bill would result in Verizon providing less than Comcast (in terms of service area construction and Institutional Network), the new bill (if adopted) could result in Comcast being able to seek relief to reduce its existing obligations to go down to the new lower level. The areas where Comcast would seek relief are PEG Access and/or INet support, because those are the main areas where Comcast can reduce monetary payments to redress level playing field inequalities.

Access Channels: The new bill requires only 2 access channels for new entrants in communities with populations under 50,000. Many communities with population under 50,000 now have 3 access channels, so the bill could result in a loss of access channels. Larger communities would have 3 access channels. (Section 8(B)). Another problem for municipalities: Under Section 8(B) the cable operator could reclaim community channels used for non-repeat programming less than 8 hours per day.

Interconnection of Incumbent and New Company Access Channels: The bill appears ambiguous about access channel interconnect, as it provides for reasonable efforts to negotiate interconnection, creating the risk of dispute concerning what constitutes reasonable effort. Section 8(H). Another problem for municipalities: the bill provides that the municipality shall be responsible for the operation and content of access channels. (Section 8(d)). The bill also makes the municipality responsible for access channel interconnections by providing, "The must municipality must ensure that all transmissions, content or programming to be transmitted over PEG access channel or facility…are provided in a manner or form that is capable of being accepted and transmitted by the franchise holder." (Section 8(E)). The foregoing shift responsibilities to the municipality that the municipality can now shift to third parties through a local franchise.

Term of License: Existing law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 166A) provides for license of up to 10 years for renewals and up to 15 years for initial licenses. Expiration of license term has been of enormous benefit to towns and cities because at expiration, the parties have renewal negotiations to update terms and conditions. This is the practice in the overwhelming majority of states. Under the proposed new law, once a state license is approved, there is no expiration of license terms, eliminating critical renewal negotiation opportunities.

Emergency Alert System: Cable operator only to comply with FCC emergency communications standards, and FCC does not require local override capability. (Section 8(G))

Indemnification of municipality would only be for negligent acts or omissions of cable operator. Current law requires indemnification for injury caused by acts or omissions of cable operator based on causation, without requiring showing of negligence. (Section 5(E))

New bill says that in any community with 2 or more cable companies, locally mandated customer service standards would no longer apply. (Section 9(C))
Loss of renewal process (if the bill goes through). Existing cable operators like Comcast would have the option of seeking state authorization pursuant to the new legislation upon expiration of an existing franchise. (Section 2(B)) So Comcast could simply opt out of renewal if it did not like the local renewal process.

Comment: Massachusetts municipal officials made a strong and unprecedented outcry against adopting 90 day licensing (at the state DTE hearing), however, the new bill seeks to usher in a new regime of 15 day state licensing.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION
http://www.wccatv.com/taxonomy/term/65

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

www.saveaccess.org

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

In the balance
LET'S NOT REDUCED LOCAL TV COVERAGE TO 17 seconds per day:
http://saveaccess.org/node/2100

This coming Tuesday two city councilors are asking the city manager to consider a short term franchise with Charter. We understand and appreciate the frustrations many have with Charter. However, the city may be making a mistake of shooting itself in the foot in this situation. If telecom companies are successful in eliminating municipal franchise authority by lobbying Fed and stte legislators, the city will loose all current franchise benefits (including WCCA and ch 11 and 12, as soon as the franchise term expires. I strongly suggest some sort of "most favored nation clause" or other legal protection to ensure Charter, or whoever the video over cable/broadband provider, will comply to meet the city's franchise needs. Franchise term is better to long and in deep. A short term franchise agreement may be the worst thing this city can do for it's communities. It may be the last chance to continue benefits of a franchise license.

On another remote but related note. The following blog sheds interesting light on PEG channels. This is something our city manager, his lawyers and the council should read and consider what is in the balance if the city fails to do the right thing:
Learning to love PEG

MIke from NY writes:
Note: According to our math, Verizon jacked their cable TV rates 7.5% last year and they now project another 11.5 rate increase this year. Apparently "Competition = Higher Prices". Hopefully the FCC and those folks in Congress
will take note . . .

You have to read more here

NOTE TO CITY COUNCIL be careful what you wish for.

Cable Competition? Note to city: Be careful what you wish for.

Mike from MNN writes: According to our math, Verizon jacked their cable TV rates 7.5% last year and they now project another 11.5 rate increase this year.
Apparently "Competition = Higher Prices". Hopefully the FCC and those folks in Congress will take note . . .

Read more here
also this By Mike Robuck CedMagazine.com .

Do you think, that it when comes to comparing cable and phone companies, they really are, pretty much, all the same? Rates continue to go up and up. So much for competition. It seems that rate controls, and franchise mandates and regulations are the only way to go. Tell congress to protect local franchises and especially provisions to support Public access.

From Ron Cooper on the Alliance ListServe writes:

"The Sacramento Business Journal published a list of California State Government's top 25 "Biggest Spenders on Lobbying for 2005-2006". Out of the top eight positions, four were either Telco or Cable TV concerns battling over the statewide cable franchising issue. The numbers are staggering:

#1 AT&T and its affiliates -- $27,747,954

#2 TV4 Us -- $15,893,472 (Note: This is the fake "support cable" web site located in Arlington VA.)

#6 Comcast Corp. -- $3,629,408

#8 Verizon Communications -- $3,234,252

I wish Amy Goodman's next expose was on how much money AT&T has spent on direct lobbying in all the states, in Congress, and with FCC? And where does AT&T's money come from? All together now -- raise your hands..... ron cooper "

We do too Ron, we do too. If they stopped spending so much on lobbyist they could potentially save consumers a ton of money.

We wonder what Massachusetts is like. Anyone..., anyone...

As we ponder why it is taking so long for Worcester to finalize a new cable contract. Here is some important information to reveiw written by Mike from N.Y.:

Pricing for Basic Cable is still subject to local municipal control and oversight - until there is verifiable competition between providers for cable service. At that time a provider can petition the FCC to lift the local pricing controls (which they have been doing in many new Verizon and AT&T service areas). At least this is my understanding of it! There are past articles on saveaccess about this too:

FCC Deregulates Basic Rates For Slew of Systems
http://saveaccess.org/node/681

Basic cable bargains could be short-lived
http://saveaccess.org/node/1198

MI: Cable franchise fall-out: Local officials learn more about AT$T
http://saveaccess.org/node/1293

- Michael