FCC moving to defund public TV stations, boost cable industry profits

In a move that alters the 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act, the FCC is seeking public comment on a proposed rule change that would allow cable corporations to deduct undefined amounts of funding from community media centers, as outlined by current policy.

The deadline for public comment is November 14th. Tomorrow.

"Under the Cable Communications Policy Act, towns in Massachusetts can collect a franchise fee in exchange for cable's use of public right's of way," McGilvray explained. "This franchise fee may be up to 5 percent of the cable operators' gross annual revenues assessed to cable subscribers."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"With cable already impacted due to the shift to online, live streaming, this effort by the FCC could sound the death knell for local cable stations everywhere."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"That means the towns PACTV serves, including Plymouth, Duxbury, Kingston and Pembroke, would no longer have local cable access channels, and funding that supports cable TV news in the high schools could also disappear. Town meetings, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Selectmen's meetings would no longer receive the gavel-to-gavel, unedited coverage they've received for 20 years. . ."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/news/20181110/pactv-threatened-by-fcc
___

Most of this just stinks because it's such a blatantly industry-friendly move—nobody really benefits except the cable companies, who are already trying to excise public access TV from their responsibilities.

Some conservative groups are saying that it'll put a stop to supposed abuse by local municipalities, but the obvious takeaway is that the move is a "textbook case of massive corporations using their power and their influence to try and lower their obligations and maximize their profits."

"Cable-related contributions are not a benefit to the franchising authority, as interpreted by the commission. These payments are made to the residents of Salem as compensation for use of public rights of way. This is a critical distinction," Driscoll wrote. "The (rule) makes broad strokes that are beneficial to the cable companies and takes very little consideration of the people who have benefited and continue to benefit from a mutually beneficial arrangement."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"This is a lose-lose choice for (local TV organizations) and the residents they serve," Markey wrote. "We fear this proposal will result in a dire drop of resources for (public) channels throughout the nation. In an era of media globalization and consolidation, (public) access stations continue to give viewers critical information about their communities and offer an important platform for local voices."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

https://www.telegram.com/news/20181112/fcc-rule-could-slash-local-cable-tv-programs
___

This is all happening unusually quickly, too. Opened in September, the comments period closes now and the decision will be handed down in time to become active policy in 2019. A lot of stations are going to need funding to make the switch from cable to internet streaming, and without that it's going to be even harder to continue to modernize.

Access television is responsible for the creation of many creative media figures and shows (beyond "Wayne's World," even). Community media is a lot of things, but in light of all the media mergers and Sinclair buyouts, hyperlocal TV is one of the few public media services left in the country. Which is important when precious few towns are served by local stations or even have an independent local newspaper.

Thanks for reading, y'all. Also, first thread! Feels good.

— Make a public comment (click "+ Express")
— Alliance for Community Media's response

DrROBschiz said:

I mean

Doesn't Sinclair Media own a bunch of local tv stations?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not the public ones—access TV stations are almost always non-profit organizations with an independent board of directors.

ZealousD said:

Yeah I think people might get the initial impression that we're talking about local broadcast affiliates when in reality we're talking about public access cable.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Good point—I put in a thread title change request.

The Sinclair broadcasting takeover plus this is really disheartening. I work in public television and while I'd definitely be able to swing a job change, I think of all the folks who use our media center and how they literally would stop creating media entirely.

They do good work that's pretty obscure for the most part beyond their community, but inside it? Huge.

Mr. X said:

PBS included?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't believe so. The Public Broadcasting Corporation exists at a more national level—this would cripple the independent local non-profit media centers. They cover a lot of nearby government meetings plus anything the local citizenry create.

dragonchild said:

I think is less a case of little guy vs. big guy so much as big guy already owns little guy but now wants to kill off little guy because it's not profitable enough. But just doing that means turning off a government spigot, so they want the funds diverted to operations they intend to maintain anyway. This like EA shooting BioWare in the back of the head, but literally wants the government to subsidize the bullet. Something to keep in mind when the Republicans talk about "free market".
Thing is, it's kind of lose-lose because fighting this change still means big guy gets the tax money one way or another. So unless I missed a detail somewhere (which is likely), I can't get too worked up about this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's some rational analysis, and I really like the analogy! It's essential to identify the fact that the industry's motivation for all of this boils down to wanting to make even more money off of their customers, monopolize the country's cable infrastructure even further to make alternatives impossible, and provide absolutely nothing in return to the public. And all of this happening against a backdrop of media consolidation, corporate mergers, and local newspapers shuttering en masse.

(I've heard it said that Comcast specifically would rather pay millions in legal fees fighting than provide services for a tenth of the cost. And they do!)