Transcript Reinventing Community Media - Georgia Institute of Technology

“Reinventing PEG Access”
Hans Klein
Georgia Institute of Technology
www.IP3.gatech.edu
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
1
The Speaker
• Cambridge Community Television
– Board member (1995-1996)
• Community Media Review
– Guest editor (1996)
• Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR) (1994-2004)
• Telecommunications Policy Advisory Committee
(TelePAC) (Atlanta, 2005)
– “Reinventing PEG Access”
– www.IP3.gatech.edu
• Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3)
2
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?
3
Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
The vision
The Technology
The PEG model
A Critique
New technology
Reinventing PEG
•
•
Institutional design
Regulatory strategy
4
The Vision
5
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
6
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
7
Localism
• Mass media are controlled by distant
corporations
• Give citizens a vision of their own
community
• By community for community
8
First Amendment Forum
• Individuals
• Get a voice
• “Electronic soapbox”
– “A loud voice on a busy corner”
• Focus is on producer
9
Social Change
• Media empowers and transforms
• Linked to activism
– Empower individuals
– Empower community groups
10
Diversity of Information
• Important for Democracy
• Many different perspectives
11
II. The Technology:
Cable Television
12
Costly
• Video technology
• Even if no dollar costs
– Still expensive
• Large time costs
– To produce
– To view
13
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
14
Local Monopoly
• “Natural monopoly”
– Too expensive for multiple networks
• Cables need rights of way
– Local regulation
15
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
16
III. The PEG Model
17
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
18
Functions
•
•
•
•
Operate channel(s)
Training
Equipment
Open to all local residents
19
IV. Critique
20
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
21
Little Used By Activists
• Costly to use
– Production is difficult
• Low viewership
– Doesn’t reach community
22
Creates Managerial Class
• Station managers
• Differentiated interests
– Salary
– Administrative expenses
• Conservative
– Preserve the institution
– Don’t rock the boat
• Expensive conferences
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
Localism – A Mixed Blessing
• Inclusion
– Empower the local community
• Exclusion
– Don’t carry external programming
27
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
28
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.
29
V. New Technology
30
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
31
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
32
Today’s Uses
•
•
•
•
Direct Access
First Amendment Forum
Social Change
Diversity of Information
33
Does Not Fully Replace TV
• Localism
– Not excluded
– But not prioritized
• Emotive content
– Video is still better
• (when done right)
34
VI. Reinventing PEG
35
Is There a Role for PEG?
• Or does market suffice?
36
Preserve PEG Funding
• $100 million per year
• A lot of public interest media money!
37
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
38
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
39
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)
40
New Focus:
Digital Inclusion
• Overcome the digital divide
• Train activists in digital media
• Make servers available
• Make equipment available
41