Talk:Public access television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Public access television was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 30 September 2006

Contents 1 Funding? 2 Proposing a new structure 3 Internet T.V. VS. Public Access 4 Vanity 5 FCC Policy 6 Access Linkage 7 FCC regulations regarding Public Access Television 8 Free Press 9 Disambiguation 10 MST3K 11 History & Etc 12 Canada 13 Failed GA 14 POV/tone picture issue 15 FCC rules 16 Future of PEG access

[edit] Funding?

Haven't been able to find information about Franchise Fees. If originally the stations were supposed to be funded by the cable companies, when did it become allowable for the cable companies to pass this cost on in this manner?

• I think this info will be hard to document, franchise fees are contracted currently on a city by city basis, each municipality would negotiate for percentages of revenue independently of others. This is likely to become a state-side or even national franchise structure some time in the future. Great starting resource is here, though I am not sure how Wikipedia community would accept a personal blog as a source: BloggingBroadband --Sean Effel 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing a new structure

It seems this article addresses too many topics even though they are all very closely related to each other. It seems there is content here about PEG access, Internet 'television', citizen journalism, FCC policy, Canadian community channels, and more. To be truly academic about all this content, I believe we should rebuild this one article into many separate articles that are branched appropriately. I'll start this process by suggesting a new stucture for all this material.

The parent article I'm going to suggest as "Citizen Media" (not citizen journalism) just as an inclusive term to represent all forms of media created by private individuals rather than private companies or corporations. My vocabulary stands to be reworked if there is a more inclusive term for this trend. The following branches I believe should be parallel unter this citizen media umbrella:

Access Television in the USA (History, US Legislation, Public, Educational, Government, LO, Practice, Trends, Resources)

Community Channel in Canada (History, CA Legislation, etc, Resources)

Community Technology Center (CTC) USA (Etc)

Citizen Journalism (Internet as television, Blogging, podcasting, etc, Resources)

So on and so forth.

This will categorize the different models of citizen produced media and help separate content into the category it belongs, strengthening all of our efforts to document these very different topics in wikipedia (and do it in a way that is inline with wikipedia methods of documentation). It also leaves open the stucture to add more parallel articles on Citizen media, such as Digital Storytelling and other community media production models that haven't been documented yet.

Please comment! -Sean Effel 10/3/2006

I tried to do something of the sort for us but had someone revert it to an even earlier version than the one I'd tried subplanting it with. DavidWJohnson 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To make it work, you'll have to create the branch pages before you remove any content. Take a look at Citizen media and the edits I made this afternoon. - Sean 10/4

[edit] Internet T.V. VS. Public Access

First, the contributions from the MCAM TV-23 public access coordinator in Manchester, NH to change the text below the entry's image of a t.v. from, "Fill in the Blank" (ala, make public access into what you will.) to "Community Media," and again to "Media Belongs to Everyone" is duly noted.

It was a much better choice vs. one in the past where they erased another's contribution of a Public Access Weblog with no explanation. One could see how maybe they thought the information contained there to be redundant, but it still contained information exclusive and encyclopedic to the entry. The originators of Channel Z &/or he could make an entry for Channel Z.

Channel Z isn't public access though but internet t.v. Public access depends upon agreements between cities, counties, & cable companies &/or what will be telecommunications companies. Channel Z depends on its webmaster. One could see his noble efforts in supporting the proliferation of internet t.v., and connecting this with his contributions that they have made some of their channel's output downloadable. But the two are totally separate entities.

One could then contest that if Channel Z doesn't belong, then the 411 Show link doesn't belong either, or that the link for Matt Hawes's The Happy Show on Sigecom ch 9 & Insight ch 7 in Evansville, IN doesn't belong either. The 411 Show's a unique case, where there public access was the first under the governments new rules to get cancelled.

Therefore, they took their public access structure and carried it right over to the internet, where among other things they are specifically educating others with information that may help them avoid a similar fate too. True, like Channel Z their 411 Show internet show isn't under a franchise, but unlike Channel Z it very well could be if the government's rules are reversed, and they get to do public access again under a franchise involving the city, county, and a telecommunications company vs. the older cable company. Therefore, their inclusion on the entry may serve an encyclopedic purpose.

Matt Hawes's The Happy Show, although a real show, in the encyclopedic sense is a basic ea. possibly for the entry. This show could be swapped with another basic show in the same sense on a regular basis. The link isn't meant to plug him, but to provide in the basic sense an ea. of a public access show. One could now replace it with another one and give the above reason for doing so. DavidWJohnson 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll argue that the caption below the television is not entirely correct, though I do see the message you want to make. Media itself is intellectual property, when I think you actually want to talk about the communications systems on which media is transported. It is more appropriate to say something like the "airwaves" or "bandwidth" or something like that. "The spectrum belongs to everyone". - Seaneffel

And second, I think this Channel Z might be filed in the wrong place. Public Access, by definition and legislation, is a legal mandate pertaining only to cable television and cable television technologies (and the contracting and franchising with individual municipalities). This article is about public access as an institution, PEG shows should have their own pages because there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of them. I also see what you are getting at with the web-based media contribution, but I think this article needs to branch again into a separate article about emerging community media technologies. "Community Media" is a more inclusive term that can better cover web-based community oriented media without associating it with a specific technology or market (or even decade). I'll suggest you rethink how to organize a new page like this so that it includes your contribute and I can help you get started. - Seaneffel

Thanks for the comments. Basically though, I think the picture shouldn't be the t.v. but a basic picture conveying what public access is. If that picture could be of a t.v. actually showing an audio/visiual mini-segment loop, possible through html embedded coding, I think that would be perfect. But until one produces that picture I think the one their now suffices. As far as the caption goes, I think it should just say, "Public Access," but I think the current one's ok, and I don't think I should mess with the gentleman's contribution from NH.

Speaking of the gentleman from NH, he's removed his channel from the channel links section, and now only has a mention of it in the trivia one. I don't know if he meant to do that or if he meant to make his only mention a non-link. If I were him I would remove the mention from the trivia section and just put a basic link in the channel links section. DavidWJohnson 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

Public access is at a very delicate crossroads, because of lots of reasons, and its important that new visitors to this article get "just the facts" and aren't flooded with tags and slogans for who the "best" and "first" access centers were.

An anonymous user continues to write vanity comments into the body of the article. This is firstly plain vanity and serves only to improve an organization's or individual's reputation, secondly it is unsupported original research since other users have claimed that not 100% of their programming is actually available, thirdly miscategorized under the "future of access" section, and forthly does not further contribute to the understanding of what PEG is. I have re-written the comment and placed it in the "Trivia" section, since this user is so persistent we can at least remove the unsupported claims and file it correctly.

[edit] FCC Policy

I read that the FCC no longer requires from the cable companies to provide Public Access, is this true?

Not yet, but that day may be coming. Follow http://www.saveaccess.org to get the answer to this question. - Sean Effel

[edit] Access Linkage

If that list of public access centers grows any larger then it should be moved to another page. No reason to crowd the page with linkage. I would do that myself but haven't sorted out how to make new wiki pages. Should also ask contributors to name the 'flavor' of access they are (ie P, E, G, PE, PG, GE, etc).

[edit] FCC regulations regarding Public Access Television

Yes, you are correct. There are no longer any rules protecting public access television from being eliminated in communities. Actually, it is already happening all across the country. Channels are being bumped or cancelled without prior notice. The best way to prevent this is to contact your local/state/national representatives and demand that public access continue to be a valued part of our communications and media system in this country.

There are bills currently in congress that will effectively eliminate access--public, educational and governmental--on a national level. Please check out www.alliancecm.org for more information about public access rules, and the threats to this very important form of expression.4.152.90.222 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free Press

Free Press (http://www.freepress.net) is also a good source for more information and seems to be more active and have more momentum on this front than the ACM.

How can we change the name of this article to be more inclusive? Public access is just a part of the topic.

I think it should be the other way around. To be logical, there should be a parent article about Media Reform, and Public Access should be a child or branch from there. Other child articles would include internet media movements, FCC and legislation, the Cable Act, and all of the sub-efforts of Media Reform. - Sean Effel 10/2/2006

[edit] Disambiguation

This page needs a disambiguation for the 1993 movie Public Access

why does the reader have to wade 4 paragraphs deep into this fun filled article just to figure out wtf "PEG" means?--Deglr6328 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I moved the PEG acronym to the top sentence of the page for you and other visitors. Good point. - Seaneffel 02 Aug 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MST3K

I removed the reference to Mystery Science Theater 3000 starting on public access, as it started on KTMA TV in Minneapolis, a commercial UHF station, not a public access channel. PersonalityCult 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History & Etc

HISTORY

Could Bill Olson be e-mailed, wherefore he could consent to his History of Public Access being used under a new section entitled "History" for the public access listing? I'd started to consolidate his history and change enough to maybe make it not a copyright violation, but his history reads so well in whole I think that it could be great to have it added to the list. I know that there's already a link to the history on the listing, but I think the history belongs under a "History" section for the listing. It may require for one sentence to be added or dropped from the second paragraph of "Principles of PEG."

I tried to figure out if you'd see this idea on your talk page Seaneffel, but it maybe looked like you didn't have anything there. And, I'm still getting use to wikipedia in general, and for personal reasons don't want to become a member yet. But, I think the Canadians deserve mention for what Mr. Olson basically says in his history that we have them to thank for it.

Finally, with a history section I sincerely think that the entry would maybe be perfect, and would read great to say a kid using it for a book report.

ETC.

Seaneffel, thanks for your comment about liking the rewording of my readdition on franchise wording. Thanks also for restructuring much of what I've said vs. totally erasing it as, in all due respect, some others have done. It helps me learn too, and I've learned more about how to do things on wiki.

You're welcome, glad I can contribute. I would suggest that Bill Olson gets his own page dedicated to this history of access. I believe you can reprint his article, without edits, and credit him with authorship. This is the appropriate academic way to skip the wait of getting permission. Unless, of course, his work is a commercial item for sale, then you risk liability and damages. Link the new Bill Olson page from the PEG page and we're good to go.- Seaneffel

Personality Cult, thanks for clarifying that MST3K was never a public access t.v. show.

[edit] Canada

According to the listing under public access, down in the trivia section, Canada has community television. Yet in Bill Olson's History of public access it possibly alludes to Canada having already had that prior to the 60s, and that eventually it did get public access also. Maybe, they still have both. According to a Canadian I talked to they at least have community television still. Also, the listing for community television states that Tom Green started out on one. Yet if community television only shows stuff they want to show I couldn't see them showing Tom Green. So maybe he was actually on Public access in Canada. Could one clarify if or if not Canada has one or the other or both? Thanks. David W. Johnson 8/29/06

[edit] Failed GA

I've failed this article's good article nomination for the same reason I opposed it in the FA nomination. The lead is too short, the article is filled with one paragraph sections, and is completely devoid of references. I also happened to notice that there is a trivia section, which violates WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 20:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid the GA process is clear - if the nomination is failed by just one person with legitimate reasons, it remains failed. The above are mostly legitimate reasons (except for the one-paragraph section thing), and there are much more (the article is flooded with external links, for example). I would like to add that most articles which would fail at FAC would also fail at GAN, as the basic criteria are very similar. In case you have any reservations concerning, you can seek a GA Review, though this is actually very clear, not compliant with a few of the Good Article criteria (I recommend you to get acquainted with them in more detail).

Please understand that the GA system is by definition based on single-person reviews, so you cannot expect more than one person to review it, even if you do not like a particular reviewer. Regards, Bravada, talk - 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, I don't think there's a limit on how fast you can nominate articles. The way I see it, if a real dispute over it came up, WP:GA/R would cover it then. Homestarmy 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no limit, but we need to apply common sense there too. The article wasn't changed anyway since it was failed, so re-nominating is pointless. Bravada, talk - 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the lead, I'm afraid that I can't make sense of it. Too many buz words, which don't make sense to someone from the UK. --Salix alba (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No references is enough to fail it. TimVickers 22:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/tone picture issue

Now, the picture of the spinning earth is nice with a heartwarming message 'n' all, but it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic in tone or NPOV. What exactly does the spinning Planet Earth have to do with community media? We could put the spinning globe image on the Coca-Cola or IBM or Hollywood pages and have a message about how people all round the world enjoy Coke or use IBM products to solve their problems or like to watch Hollywood movies. I think the message is misleading too... I don't think the output of the Manhattan Neighborhood Network[1] belongs to, or is identified with, the citizens of Budapest, Kinshasa or Bali for instance. So, unfortunately for the nice image, I'm taking it out of this article for tone/POV issues. Bwithh 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • btw, the Manhattan Neighborhood Network article has been lazily created as an empty stub. Needs work.... Bwithh 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FCC rules

I can't figure out what the following paragraph is supposed to mean:

Municipalities or cable operators may attempt to end local PEG access by calling upon rules by the FCC. that further regulate broadcast content. For example, Janet Jackson's appearance at the 2004 Super Bowl, and Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech. The new regulations laid out by the FCC apply to broadcast television and affiliates only, because broadcast television is available for free public viewership and faces heavier regulation whereas cable television (and PEG) are cable services and are subject to different regulations.

The problems are:

1. The FCC did not get involved in taking action with regard to Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech, so I don't know why this was even mentioned. By contrast, the FCC assessed $550,000 in fines in regard to the Janet Jackson incident.
2. The second part of the paragraph states that the FCC regulations apply only to broadcast television, not cable services on which PEG access programs appear, contradicting the idea that municipalities or cable operators might use those regulations to shut down PEG access.

--Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(RE:1.) Exactly! Yet critics of Public Access television have and do use this to say Public Access has to be pre-screened (which is a major violation of first admendment rights.). By contrast, if Janet Jackson can figure in with the issue then why erase the mention entirely vs. keeping it. Insight cable in Evansville, IN actually said the new FCC rules applied to Public Access (when in reality it didn't but applies to Broadcast television.) and used it as a reason to justify prescreening Public Access saying that the FCC had cracked down on them with new rules because of Janet Jackson and similiar things.

(RE:2.) Exactly! It's sad but true. But they 'do' use those regulations to try and shut down PEG access. That was my point. I've tried to polish the mention in the article to make this clearer. Thanks for your contributions on the article. I don't know if you only came across it because you'd wrote an article about the Academy Awards, but it's always good to see someone take an interest in Public Access television. Thanks again.

I added some other countries where Public Access Television is done which didn't fall under the articles for Canada and Australia. It's important for people to know that Public Access is global and not only in the US. I also added Guerrilla Television to the See also section because an administrator told me to link that article with other articles. Guerrilla television was a precursor to Public Access television and thus serves as a link as he asked. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From the above content. I think you mean to point out that there are concessions for citizens to access media infrastructure all over the world. However, "Public Access Television" is the legal definition of the structure in the United States. This is why I refined the Citizen Media article, as a more inclusive, global term since Public Access Television doesn't exist in law in Australia, its legally called something else. You should start new child articles from Citizen Media about those countries. --Sean Effel 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• good point, great decision to remove content, it doesn't apply here. --Sean Effel 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand what Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech has to do with the issues covered in this article. If one of the editors who believe it's relevant could provide some sources indicating so, that would help. --Metropolitan90 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed Michael Moore. DavidWJohnson 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed, good decision. - Sean

[edit] Future of PEG access

This entire section seems like an attack on the cable industry. I don't know enough about it to neutralize it (don't know what is going on on cable's side) but it just sounded very biased. Kyouteki 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I edited that section for biased comments. It was important to maintain that cable company business is a threat to PEG and orgs have always risked budget slashes from large media corporations, but the focus should be more clear in the second paragraph. Access is a mission oriented movement and technology (cable and radio vs. internet and blogs) are just tools. I removed the POV tag, don't know if that is the appropriate way to do it. Lemme know. --Sean Effel 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)