December 12, 2007 8:33 AM
Learning to Live Without PEG Channels (And Loving It!)
In the telecom space, a contentious issue is that of the fate of PEG channels.
PEG stands for Public, Educational, and Governmental. PEG channels carry things like public access programming, videos produced by schools, and coverage of local government meetings.
PEG channels are created as a function of local franchise agreements, which often require cable operators to create and maintain channels for distribution as well as facilities for content production.
Increasingly, PEG channels are under attack as statewide franchise agreements supersede local requirements for new entrants to support the existing PEG paradigm, and some incumbents are reassessing their support of PEG channels, threatening to shut down production facilities and cordon off the delivery of PEG channels to digital tiers of service.
While I'm all for maintaining all avenues for free speech, I can't help but wonder: would a world without PEG channels really be so bad?
I've spoken with people from the network operator side, the app developer side, and community side of this issue and have learned that there are a number of significant, entrenched interests that support the traditional idea of PEG channels, but let's consider for a moment a PEG channel's characteristics.
A PEG channel is often uncontrolled by the content producers; they have to make their shows and give them to the cable operator to get them scheduled. The public often doesn't know PEG channels exist. Even if they do know, figuring out when a show airs can be a chore, and often important programming gets pushed to odd hours. And in the end you're still stuck with the static paradigm of television.
So this begs the question: what's the big deal about PEG channels?
Now, I understand the need for places for the public to create and distribute content, and that's something we have to find a way to facilitate. No argument here on that.
But on the distribution side of things, I wonder if we might all be better off moving past gnashing our teeth over the demise of PEG channels and instead start focusing on the possibilities of, for lack of a better term, PEG 2.0 channels, which utilize the Internet to deliver content rather than the cable system.
PEG 2.0 means a world where content producers control when, where, and how their content is distributed. Users can access what they want to watch where and when they want to watch it. Search possibilities open up where viewers can skip to the parts of a video that are most relevant to them. Interactive opportunities are introduced where an audience can not just watch but also engage. And the reach of these initiatives extends beyond the geographic limitations of cable systems (which sometimes cuts off citizens from community content when a primary cable operator doesn't cover 100% of homes).
Some communities are already facing up to the realities of a shifting world for PEG channels and a bright future for PEG 2.0, like Meridian, MI. In Michigan, Comcast has stirred up controversy with its plans to move all PEG channels to its digital tier of service, meaning all subscribers who have not signed up for premium digital service will be unable to receive PEG channels.
Because of these plans Meridian has decided to focus all of its energies on utilizing streaming video powered by Granicus to reach the public with their PEG programming. (More on this story soon...)
But again, I don't see this movement away from PEG channels to PEG 2.0 as something to be lamented but instead a trend that should be celebrated.
The limitations of PEG channels has been holding back the adoption and consumption of that content. The introduction and movement towards PEG 2.0 should reignite interest in local content and reinvigorate the opportunities cities have for connecting with their citizens.
And how is all this possible? Only through broadband.
Comments (8)
On behalf of the Public Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access centers in Michigan I must point out one glaring omission in your opinion piece. PEG Access centers are the only place left in a free society where the public has access to mass media and may let the rest of their community know about things of interest. There are no commercial interests needed. What you get from your PEG TV is unfiltered reality, information and community events. I understand the commercial need to reclaim bandwidth that is currently set aside for the public interest but lets keep the discussion on the point of what's best for the public not just the corporate sponsors.
Thanks,
Mark F. Monk
MI-ACM President &
Operations Manager
Community Access Center
359 South Kalamazoo Mall, #300
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
269-343-2211
CACTV.Org
Posted by Mark F. Monk on December 13, 2007 1:12 PM
I have always stated that if bandwidth is NOT an issue, what applications and new capabilities would be implemented by users of the network?
If bandwidth and channels become cheap - or not an issue, what applications could be economically feasible?
What about the broadcast of all little league games, local weddings, graduations, high school football games, and on and on? If I can buy a channel for $20 a month, what could I put on it? These are questions and applications that could start a whole new segmentation of video services.
We need Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity instead of legislation that amounts to restrictions and protectionism to support an obsolete network platform.
PEG channels are a shrinking part of that legacy but the bandwidth and capacity for what you call PEG 2.0 has to be out there to move forward.
Posted by JAMES CARLINI on December 13, 2007 1:18 PM
Not sure what Telco Bunker you are living in Geoff but PEG Access Center have been using the Internet to stream and to archive programming for nearly ten years. They have been in the forefront of understanding that their programming is local and global at the same time. In the past three years many of these website have begun the migration to CMS website and now offer the communities they serve with chat and blog features along with discussion threads. They also feature downloadable links to producers program that are hosted by YouTube and GoogleTV as well as images on Flickr. You community does not need to be lectured by a Telco flack. BTW, Verizon has taken the initiative in their local license agreements to provide the PEG channels with free fiber links to their transmission facilities so that the PEG channel in their systems have the same quality delivery as all of the cable and broadcast channels. Needles to say the same cannot be said for at&t;, which is doing everything possible to degrade the PEG signal so that it is unviewable by the viewing impaired in violation of Disability Act. And finally PEG channels are the last and sometime only source of local programming since media consolidation has eliminated the local programming that used to be the reason broadcaster got a license. We are now a Nation dominated by Corporate Media when we should be a Nation of Community Media.
Posted by Chuck Sherwood on December 13, 2007 5:05 PM
One glaring omission by our Technorati is the NONCOMMERCIAL nature of Public, Educational, and Governmental programming. The fact that PEG channels are commercial-free zones gives the battle for the bandwidth they occupy a whole new meaning to the stakes involved for the various players, be they content creators, programmers, or distributors.
Would "a world without PEG channels really be so bad" for the cable operators? Heck no! They've been itching for decades to replace your local PEG lineup-if your community if fortunate enough to have one-with their choice of various home shopping channels. There is a reason we've recently been treated to the most unusual spectacle of cable companies and telcos-mortal enemies in most contests involving telecomm public policy-joining forces to push for these "statewide franchises". They want to "level the playing field" so neither delivery system has any obligation whatsoever to support or make way for noncommercial, public interest programming.
Like many technologists, our Technorati seems to hope that by focusing on the "gee whiz" aspect of the newest technology, the public policy aspects of the discussion will go away. Let's assume for a minute that the telcos will create "channels" on which programs produced by your local government, school system, community college, or independent producer can be searched, accessed, and viewed via video streaming. Why does that mean these entities should lose their place in the traditional broadcast cable spectrum. All content producers-be they major networks or local PEG channels-have already begun to distribute their programs over as many platforms as possible. Are they giving up their original distribution channels? Why should content produced by PEG entities lose one significant platform just because an additional technology is available? This is a false choice.
The writer also assumes the availability of broadband on a scale that will probably not be realized in this country for another generation. This is not South Korea, Germany, or any number of other industrialized nations where the availability of "broadband" far surpasses that of the US. Why is this so? Is their technology superior? I think not. The answer probably lies in public policy. The publics in these countries expect their governments to take an active role in the dispersion of telecommunications technology rather than simply leaving it to the "magic of the market". And BTW, how "broadband" is defined in these aforementioned countries contrasts significantly with how American companies are defining it for US. That is another dimension of the discussion...one sufficiently technical in scope as to be appropriate for our Technorati.
The adoption of and consumption of "TV 2.0" style programming will not prompt American broadcast networks to surrender their broadcast licenses. The adoption and consumption of "TV 2.0" will not prompt the commercial cable programmers to stop selling their content to the cable systems. Nor will the cable systems fold thier tents when all commercial video content is available via IP.
The writer assumes the internet as brought to us by the telcos will remain "neutral" carriers of all video content. Video programming, whether it be commercial, PEG, or otherwise, may be encoded and placed in "cyberspace", but the resource over which it will be delivered is no less finite than that of the cable company. If the next business model for the internet features a sharing of costs between the content producers and the bandwidth providers, who pays the PEG programmer's share?
Given the current situation, there are a couple of things of which you can be sure. One, the telcos are spending more money this year-more than all the money spent on all the PEG channels in the country combined-to influence and relax the rules under which they operate. Second, whatever success they achieve will be at the eventual expense of any support for local, noncommercial video content production and distribution.
Cable technology created the technical feasibility of local PEG channels, not the economic feasibility. These channels were created by the application of a foundational principle of US telecommunications policy - the "airwaves belong to the people".
I welcome the prospect of technical experimentation for the creation and distribution of video content. Why call it PEG 2.0, though? Why not TV 2.0? When the experiment has sufficiently progressed to the point commercial broadcasters volutarily vacate their cable channels, PEG channels will gladly follow.
Posted by Jim Bailey on December 13, 2007 5:24 PM
Your view of public access PEG channel is either very narrow or skewed. Public Access centers are much more than the content that comes through them. Telecom space is what it is. Telecom space is space that is controlled by and to serve the interest of the Telecom industry.
In my city WCCA TV 13, our Public Access Center, serves one interest and that is the interest of the people our communities throughout our city.
That is the case with most public access centers.
It is the public access center, particularly the non-profit facilitated access centers that have been the first to really experiment and develop what you define as PEG.20. PEG offers more than packet files of video however. In a Public Access Centers, such as ours, you will find thousands of content producers participating in a community contributing to cable presentations, up and down loading video content, creating community interactive websites, sharing information, conducting workshops and classes, youth media groups, forming outreach partnerships, providing connections for those in need including valuable outreach for millions of non-profits around the nation and so much more. Our Public Access Center, like many others, give back millions of dollars of media, public service to benefit our citizens local economy every year.
The truth is, Public Access centers have been the first to introduce, provide experiential learning opportunities, and promote video applications via the Internet. Furthermore, Public Access centers have introduced and continue to offer, on a daily basis, hands on training, access to media production tools, computers, and personal consulting and assistance to meet the electronic needs of their communities. The result has been a increase of content up and down loading, as well as an increase of interactive media. This deserves to be celebrated as democratic and free speech media/television at its best. Not the static paradigm you proclaim it to be.
It may be true that some examples of cable companies and local governments are seen as stonewalling, or cordoning off public access video presentations. People aren’t aware of the programming because many cable operators refuse to include PEG channels on their program guides. Political whim, ignorance and corruption often play a role in diminishing the capacity of a public access center. Cable companies and government entities rarely, if ever, prioritize public access programming. Most non-profit public access centers however, at the center of their mission, place the public/community voices (content) as a first priority and in addition, work hard to promote it make the public aware of it. Non-profit Public access centers also give control to content producers to post videos online, present their shows on cable. In addition most public access centers provide professional staff assistance to train, and to ensure content producers can reach their vision. Our access center also is the paramount beacon, in our city, to advocate for community voices and free speech electronic platforms. In our city 91% of those surveyed find our public access channel important.
Interest in local content exists because of our public access PEG channels. I suggest that what needs to be done is to increase legislative mandates to further support Public Access channels and to ensure non-profit facilitated centers are encouraged to continue to move forward to carry their missions on all modes of transmission be it fiber, broadband, wireless, satellite, and whatever will next be invented. Perhaps mandates should also be enacted to assure every city and town must carry a fully functional public access center. The one problem we face, at least locally, at the moment, is a city that may fail to include public access on its new telecommunication infrastructure. This challenges us to find ways to reach beyond the limitations of one cable operator. However, in spite of the lack of city or government in this area we do manage to be seen around the world through our stream or download offerings. It is not without difficulty. I imagine that if we, as a funded public access center are financially challenged to maintain such service how would poorer individuals participate at all in a PEG .20 venue without totally free equipment, connection and access? There are many great public access centers. Check out what WCCA TV has been doing to celebrate and enfranchise citizens, engage and share stories, culture and heritage, through locally produced content. I invite you to visit http://www.wccatv.com . Our content hs ben available on line for years. Hopefully you will rethink your position and maybe others as well.
Mauro DePasquale, WCCA TV 13, “The People’s Channel”
Posted by Mauro DePasquale on December 13, 2007 7:17 PM
Your view of public access PEG channel is either very narrow or skewed. Public Access centers are much more than the content that comes through them. Telecom space is what it is. Telecom space is space that is controlled by and to serve the interest of the telecom industry.
In my city WCCA TV, our Public Access Center, serves one interest and that is the interest of the people our communities throughout our city.
It is the public access center, particularly the non-profit facilitated access centers that have been the first to really experiment and develop what you define as PEG.20. PEG offers more than packet files of video however. In a Public Access Centers, such as ours, you will find thousands of content producers participating in a community contributing to cable presentations, up and down loading video content, creating community interactive websites, sharing information, conducting workshops and classes, youth media groups, forming outreach partnerships, providing connections for those in need including valuable outreach for millions of non-profits around the nation and so much more. Our Public Access Center, like many others, give back millions of dollars of media, public service to benefit our citizens local economy every year.
The truth is, Public Access centers have been the first to introduce, provide experiential learning opportunities, and promote video applications via the Internet. Furthermore, Public Access centers have introduced and continue to offer, on a daily basis, hands on training, access to media production tools, computers, and personal consulting and assistance to meet the electronic needs of their communities. The result has been a increase of content up and down loading, as well as an increase of interactive media. This deserves to be celebrated as democratic and free speech media/television at its best. Not the static paradigm you proclaim it to be.
It may be true that some examples of cable companies and local governments are seen as stonewalling, or cordoning off public access video presentations. People aren’t aware of the programming because many cable operators refuse to include PEG channels on their program guides. Political whim, ignorance and corruption often play a role in diminishing the capacity of a public access center. Cable companies and government entities rarely, if ever, prioritize public access programming. Most non-profit public access centers however, at the center of their mission, place the public/community voices (content) as a first priority and in addition, work hard to promote it make the public aware of it. Non-profit Public access centers also give control to content producers to post videos online, present their shows on cable. In addition most public access centers provide professional staff assistance to train, and to ensure content producers can reach their vision. Our access center also is the paramount beacon, in our city, to advocate for community voices and free speech electronic platforms. In our city 91% of those surveyed find our public access channel important.
Interest in local content exists because of our public access PEG channels. I suggest that what needs to be done is to increase legislative mandates to further support Public Access channels and to ensure non-profit facilitated centers are encouraged to continue to move forward to carry their missions on all modes of transmission be it fiber, broadband, wireless, satellite, and whatever will next be invented. Perhaps mandates should also be enacted to assure every city and town must carry a fully functional public access center. The one problem we face, at least locally, at the moment, is a city that may fail to include public access on its new telecommunication infrastructure. This challenges us to find ways to reach beyond the limitations of one cable operator. However, in spite of the lack of city or government in this area we do manage to be seen around the world through our stream or download offerings. It is not without difficulty. I imagine that if we, as a funded public access center are financially challenged to maintain such service how would poorer individuals participate at all in a PEG .20 venue without totally free equipment, connection and access? There are many great public access centers. Check out what WCCA TV has been doing to celebrate and enfranchise citizens, engage and share stories, culture and heritage, through locally produced content. I invite you to visit http://www.wccatv.com . Hopefully you will rethink your position and maybe others as well.
Mauro DePasquale, WCCA TV 13, “The People’s Channel”
Posted by Mauro DePasquale on December 13, 2007 7:37 PM
I don't know about you, but I could care less what happens in Timbuktu, but I do care a MIGHTY LOT what my city council is up to as well as have the opportunity to take tele courses from my local university. I can get that info and more via PEG channels, but not the Net.
Take away my local PEG channels..no way, Jose!!!!
Posted by Juergen Denecke on December 13, 2007 9:39 PM
As soon as ESPN, CNN and FoxNews are willing to move to an all internet streaming application and give up their channels, the PEG community, I am sure, will be willing to follow suit.
Posted by Bunnie Riedel on December 14, 2007 1:53 PM