Quoted Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

FACT SHEET


May 1998

CABLE TELEVISION FACT SHEET

PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS CHANNELS ("PEG CHANNELS")

Pursuant to Section 611 of the Communications Act, local franchising authorities may require cable operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental ("PEG") use.

Public access channels are available for use by the general public. They are usually administered either by the cable operator or by a third party designated by the franchising authority.

Educational access channels are used by educational institutions for educational programming. Time on these channels is typically allocated by either the franchising authority or the cable operator among local schools, colleges and universities.

Governmental access channels are used for programming by organs of local government. In most jurisdictions, the franchising authority directly controls these channels.

PEG channels are not mandated by federal law, rather they are a right given to the franchising authority, which it may choose to exercise. The decision whether to require the cable operator to carry PEG channels is up to the local franchising authority. If the franchise authority does require PEG channels, that requirement will be set out in the franchise agreement between the franchising authority and the cable operator.

Franchising authorities may also require cable operators to set aside channels for educational or governmental use on institutional networks; i.e., channels that are generally available only to institutions such as schools, libraries, or government offices.

Franchising authorities may require cable operators to provide services, facilities, or equipment for the use of PEG channels.

In accordance with applicable franchise agreements, local franchising authorities or cable operators may adopt on their own, non-content-based rules governing the use of PEG channels. For example:

Rules may be adopted for allocating time among competing applicants on a reasonable basis other than the content of their programming.
Minimum production standards may be required.
Users may be required to undergo training.
Federal law permitted a cable operator to prohibit the use of a PEG channel for programming which contained obscene material, sexually explicit conduct, indecency, nudity, or material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct. However, The U.S. Supreme Court determined that this law was unconstitutional. Therefore, cable operators may not control the content of programming on public access channels with the exception that the cable operator may refuse to transmit a public access program, or a portion of the program, which the cable operator reasonably believes contains obscenity.

PEG channel capacity which is not in use for its designated purpose may, with the franchising authority's permission, be used by the cable operator to provide other cable services. Franchising authorities are directed by federal law to prescribe rules governing when such use is permitted.

For additional information:

Any questions or comments about PEG channels on a particular system should be directed to the cable operator or the local franchising authority, and not to the Federal Communications Commission. The name and telephone number of your franchising authority should appear on your cable bill, or should be available through your cable operator. With very limited exceptions, the Federal Communications Commission is not responsible for enforcing the federal statute governing PEG channels.

Quoted Text

By Stephen Sacco
Times Herald-Record
Published: 2:00 AM - 12/05/10
You might not have heard of Ken Wishnick, but he's the host of his own TV show.

Wishnick, a real estate agent in New Paltz, hosts "Hello, New Paltz," which is known for its opening montage where he gets people on the street to say "Hello, New Paltz" into his camera.

Wishnick has interviewed everybody from the local school board president to former newspaper publisher Jim Ottaway.

A Community-TV Timeline
1968: Dale City, Virginia's non-commercial community TV station is launched. The station is generally considered the first public-access TV station in the U.S. Stations in Wisconsin and New York City followed.


1969: The Federal Communication Commission requires public-access stations for cable systems with 3,500 or more subscribers.


1972: The FCC amends requirements and now mandates PEG (Public Education and Government) channels in the top 100 television markets. Later, the FCC extends PEG requirements to cable systems with 3,500 subscribers or more.


1979: U.S. Supreme Court knocks down the FCC mandate for PEG channels as exceeding its authority.


1984: The Cable Franchise Policy and Communication Act written by Sen. Barry Goldwater is made law. The act establishes that municipalities may require PEG channels as part of the franchise agreement but also allows municipalities to opt out of PEG.


1998: The New York State Committee on Open Government issues a legal opinion involving Kingston Public Access TV, advising that public-access television stations are subject to the state's open-meeting laws.


2006: California passes a law making it easier for telephone providers to get into the cable TV business that weakens PEG channel requirements.
"I wanted to do a program that would highlight the positive things that were happening in our community," Wishnick said. He uses his own equipment that he also uses in his real estate business, and edits and produces the show himself.

It's aired on New Paltz public-access TV and on the Internet at http://hellonewpaltz.info.

Wishnick exemplifies what public-access TV was created to do: give ordinary folks access to the airwaves where they can talk about the issues that matter to their lives.

New Paltz doesn't have a TV studio, like some towns do. The station is broadcast from in Town Hall. The model works well, says Supervisor Toni Hokanson.

In the Hudson Valley, about 50 percent of the public-access stations are served by having Time Warner broadcast tapes of local content, says Harriet Novet, vice president of public affairs for Time Warner.

But not every town has public-access, and with the Internet — where you can broadcast your own show on YouTube or Vimeo using a relatively inexpensive laptop — some question the for need public-access TV, given the advances in technology.

It was created, after all, in a world (gasp!) that didn't have the Internet. So, is public access necessary?

The surprising answer is yes, say people involved in community media. In fact, they say, it's more important than ever. On the Internet you can reach the world; but with public-access TV you can reach your neighbors.

Tune into Channel 23 on most cable networks and you'll find locally originated programming that can range from news shows to the theater of the absurd. In some areas, the channel is used as a community bulletin board.

"You'd be surprised how many people watch," said Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. Freeman said after he makes appearances on public-access TV, he's deluged with e-mails.

But nobody measures the audiences for public access; it's too expensive and there's no financial incentive do it, says The Nielsen Co., which tracks TV ratings.


PEG channels are born
Public-access stations were created out of the community ethos of the late 1960s and early '70s. Don't confuse it with public broadcasting (PBS), which is publicly funded but created by professionals.

Besides the mandate for cable companies to provide equipment, there's very little public funding of community-access TV.

In 1984, Congress put in place the law by which most public-access stations — which are known as PEG (which stands for Public Education and Government) channels — operate today.

When municipalities negotiate the franchise agreement with a cable provider, they also set the terms for PEG channels. So there's no standard setup for a public access; it all depends on what was negotiated. Towns don't need to set up a channel if they choose not to.


The new public gathering place
Kenyatta Cheese is uniquely qualified to speak about both public access and Internet broadcasts.

He spent several years working for Manhattan's public-access channel, one of the largest in the country, and now works for Rocketboom.com, a popular Internet news shows with a humorous slant.

"Today there's no town square, and that's what public access can provide," he said.

On the Internet, you can reach a guy in China who shares your obsessions. But for community organizers and organizations, public access offers more benefits, says Cheese, like being able to reach people who don't regularly use the Internet.

But viewers have to come to community media with the right expectations.

"One of the problems is (public access) tends to treat civilians like professionals," Cheese said. "People expect certain things from broadcast television and (the people participating in public access) are a bunch of people doing this after work."

Dan Coughlin, executive director at Manhattan Neighborhood Network, the de facto flagship public-access channel in New York, says the Internet has fed an increased interest in community media.

Training classes the station provides are packed, he says. "The digital-media revolution has made communications and media more important in people's daily lives," Coughlin said.


Free speech at a cost
But there have been management problems at public-access stations. In Kingston and Port Jervis, stations have been plagued by internal conflicts.

In theory, nobody is supposed to have veto power over content, with the exception of violations of community standards for decency. The management of the station is there to facilitate, not dictate. The laws are written to protect free speech.

But this makes it almost impossible for municipalities, cable companies and even the FCC to intervene when things go wrong.

Nancy Gordon, who had two long-running shows in Port Jervis — which claims to be the oldest public-access station in New York — recently took her shows off the air, saying she was fed up with the internal power struggle at the station.

It was a difficult decision, she says. "I gave a lot to the station, and it meant a lot to me," Gordon said. She is hoping to return.

Stanley Siegel, a Port Jervis councilman who acts as a liaison with the city's TV station, says the Port station is periodically in danger of losing the space it rents from the city for $1 a year because of infighting.

He says losing the station would hurt the community.

"The Boy Scout troops broadcasts their awards (on public-access) every year," Siegel said. "Who else is going to do that?"

Quoted Text

PEG Support Fees
Same per-subscriber fee as incumbent until expiration of incumbent franchise. After expiration, state franchisee may, at city’s discretion, continue per-subscriber fee or pay 1% of gross revenues
None
Same per-subscriber fee as incumbent
If no incumbent, and commission requires provision of PEG channels, it may also set level of PEG support
PEG capital fee: lowest existing per- subscriber fee or gross revenues percentage fee to support PEG capital costs34
PEG capital grant surcharge fee, if existing local franchise paid lump-sum capital grant or provided equipment: lower of latter or 1.5% of gross revenues
PEG fees collected until earliest existing local franchise expiration date, after which new fee may be negotiated or set by ordinance

Quoted Text

Federal Limitation of PEG Fees to Capital Costs OnlyBy Dr. Theodore Bolema | Nov. 10, 2008
The FCC has taken the position that PEG fees, by federal statute, may only be used for the capital costs incurred for PEG access facilities. This position was challenged in federal court and was upheld on June 27, 2008.[*]

Thus, any additional fees collected from the proposed PEG fee legislation must go solely for studios. In fairness to the sponsors of the legislation, this federal court ruling came well after the proposed Michigan legislation was introduced. It was still an open issue at the time the PEG legislation was introduced as to whether PEG fees could be used for programming, equipment, or general expenses related to PEG channels, but the issue has now been clarified by the federal courts. If Michigan enacts the proposed legislation, cable subscribers and cable companies will pay tens of millions of dollars each year for every imaginable improvement to PEG studios, but these additional PEG revenues will not, by federal law, be allowed to go toward programming, production, overhead or equipment costs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted Text

Federalization and FCC PEG Channel Preservation Case | March 6, 2009
Posted by: John Pestle, Partner – Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, LLP

            PEG channel disputes have now moved (literally) to a new level.  Historically, these were handled on a local level.  Now as a new FCC case on PEG matters exemplifies, they are increasingly “federalized,” i.e., being shifted to the federal level.  This post will briefly describe the reasons for this shift, put it in historical perspective, and note the related point that municipalities wishing to preserve PEG channels as they have traditionally been provided should file comments with the FCC by March 9.

            Traditionally, local franchises have set forth the specifics on channels for public, education or governmental (PEG) use – - for example, the number of channels to be provided, funding for them, who would operate them, where a studio might be located, and so on.  

            Several things have changed to upset this situation: First, in some major states (such as Texas, California and Florida) franchising has been shifted to the state level with statutory provisions and franchise terms which discourage PEG channels.  Second, cable operators have taken actions that discourage (and sometimes lead to the elimination of) PEG channels such as not agreeing to new channels, eliminating or consolidating existing channels, decreasing or eliminating PEG funding, and eliminating studios and other “in kind” support for PEG channels.  A cynic might note that PEG channels take up space which otherwise might be used by programmers who would pay the cable company to have their channels carried (more shopping channels anyone?).  

            In a more recent action affecting PEG channels, Comcast (and other cable companies) have attempted to conserve channel space by providing PEG channels (but only PEG channels) solely in a digital format (digital channels take up less space on a cable system than older analog channels).  However customers with older analog TV sets will have to get (and in many cases, pay the cable company for) a converter box in order to get PEG channels and, for example, see their city council meeting and the like.  This converter box is different from the one necessary for older TVs to continue working with rabbit ears.  Comcast has also proposed to put PEG channels into what some have viewed the “digital desert” (i.e., channels in the 900 range).  

            Concurrently, AT&T has attempted to put PEG channels on a separate and inferior video delivery system from that used for all its other channels.  In essence, on AT&T systems, PEG signals are  provided in a manner that makes them hard to access (hundreds of PEG channels located on “Channel 99,” with individual channels accessed slowly by a click-through menu), the actual picture is in a “You-Tube” internet type format and lacks the functionality (compatibility with digital video recorders, closed captioning and the like) of all other channels.

            The upshot are three Petitions to the FCC relating to PEG channels:  Two (by the City of Lansing and the Alliance for Community Media) challenge under federal law AT&T’s provision of PEG channels in a manner different and inferior to that of other channels.  The third petition (Dearborn et al.) challenges Comcast’s actions as violating federal requirements that PEG channels be part of the “basic service tier” and other requirements.  

In early February, the Obama FCC combined these three cases into one and solicited comments from all interested parties by March 9.  As is perhaps obvious, this “federalization” of PEG channel matters follows somewhat naturally from the state cable legislation that is generally harmful to PEG and takes away the prior local forum for resolving PEG channel issues.  Cities and PEG advocates are thus left only with the Federal Cable Act and Federal forums (FCC, Federal Courts) to defend PEG channels.

            From a broader perspective, PEG Federalization bears some relation to the 2007 decisions by the Bush FCC towards federalizing the cable franchising process by setting standards for cable franchise grants and renewals, especially those involving phone companies seeking cable franchises.  The FCC decisions asserted broad jurisdiction by the FCC over what heretofore had been viewed as purely local franchising matters, a position generally upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008.

            Viewed from a historical perspective, such federalization of cable matters follows classic  patterns in utility regulation:  Although we do not focus much on it these days, regulation of the classic utilities such as telephone, gas, and water at its inception was exclusively local through so-called “franchise regulation.”  But as those utilities expanded to cover multiple franchise areas and then multiple states, regulation shifted from the local municipality to the state and often thence to the federal level.  The specifics here are different but viewed from the sweep of the past 150 years the result is much the same – - the federalization of what had been previously largely local issues.

            To come back to the immediate point, if a municipality is interested in preserving its PEG channels as they have traditionally been provided – - each on its own channel number, easily accessible, in high quality, and generally the same in accessibility, quality and features as local TV stations on cable – - make sure to file comments at the FCC by March 9.  The relevant FCC documents, including information from its Public Notice on how to file, are available, among other places, on our web site at http://www.varnumlaw.com/serviceGroups/cableTV/cableFranchising/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted in Telecommunications
Tags: cable, FCC, Federal, Federal Communication Comission, franchise, localities, PEG, Pestle, public notice, state, tv, Varnum

Quoted Text

Local, State and Federal Cable Franchise RegulationBy Dr. Theodore Bolema | Nov. 10, 2008
For more than 50 years, local governments have had a significant degree of regulatory control over cable systems through their franchise agreements with cable companies. In contrast, cities and other local governments have no control over DBS services delivered into their jurisdictions.

The difference in regulatory treatment is due to cable's need for rights-of-way for their network of wires. Local governments control these rights-of-way and often own the utility poles and other infrastructure used for cable television delivery. Thus, cable operators must negotiate franchise arrangements with local governments for access to rights-of-way in exchange for paying franchise fees to the local government and meeting other conditions in the franchise arrangement.

These franchise agreements are based to some extent on the "natural monopoly" regulatory model used with electrical utilities and local telephone companies, because historically the agreements have protected a local cable monopolist from competition in exchange for franchise fees and various service- quality requirements.[*] The franchise agreements typically also contain additional conditions requiring the cable company to provide certain services designated by the local government, including public access channels; funds to assist local citizens or organizations in producing programming for these channels; and studios and equipment for those interested in providing local programming.

Cable television does have some characteristics consistent with other industries that have been regulated as "natural monopolies." Like electrical utilities and phone companies, cable television is dependent on local governments for rights-of-way. Moreover, its network of wires is capital-intensive, a fact that made construction of a second competing network prohibitively costly in earlier times.

Other features of cable television do not lend themselves as well to natural-monopoly regulation, however. Most notable is the fact that competitors have emerged, including the telephone companies that have entered local cable markets and the national DirecTV and Dish Network satellite services. Moreover, cable television also offers highly differentiated products, such as a wide variety of channels, packages and add-on programming. Most industries regulated as natural monopolies offer predominantly undifferentiated products, such as electricity and telephone line access. Indeed, the differentiation of the cable industry's products and the potential for innovations in programming and programming packages led many commentators to criticize monopoly regulation of cable television through local franchise agreements even before DBS and new cable entrants emerged as competitive alternatives to traditional cable systems.[3]

Over time, the role of state and the federal government in regulating local franchise agreements has increased, making the agreements more uniform and reducing local government discretion in regulation of cable television. Practically speaking, the natural monopoly model lost much of its applicability in 1992 when the U.S. Congress prohibited local governments from engaging in exclusive franchise agreements.[4]

Nevertheless, local governments still have significant control over local cable providers due to government control of rights-of-way. Cable companies now pay more than $3 billion per year in franchise fees nationwide.[5]

The State of Michigan has never regulated cable television rates at the state level. Before 1984, the only regulation of cable television prices was by local governments through franchise agreements with cable systems. Any local regulation of prices was largely ended when Congress passed the Cable Communication Policy Act of 1984 to greatly limit the ability of local governments to control cable rates. The 1984 act standardized procedures for cable franchise renewal and limited cable franchise fees to 5 percent of the cable system's gross revenues.[6] The 1984 act also allowed local governments to require that cable systems "provide adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational, and government access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support." These "public, educational, and government" access channels are the "PEG" stations that Michigan House Bill 5047 and Senate Bill 636 would require cable television companies to finance with extra fee payments. PEG channels are discussed in more depth in the next section.[7]

The first federal regulation of cable television rates was implemented as a result of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.[8] This legislation occurred during period in which a cable system was subject to non-broadcast competition only in the few municipalities that allowed a second cable system franchise to enter the local market. As noted earlier, the 1992 act prevented local governments from granting a cable company an exclusive monopoly cable franchise. The "must-carry" provisions in the 1992 act required that cable systems carry all local open-air broadcast stations in their area, and the retransmission consent requirements mandated payments to the local stations.

Although these must-carry requirements changed the bargaining leverage in favor of broadcasters, the most noticeable impact for viewers was probably the rapid increase in the number of shopping channels carried on their cable system. Shopping channel programmers took advantage of the must-carry rules and began broadcasting shopping programming on new or existing local stations that had to be carried by the local cable system.

The rate regulation following the 1992 act did not last long. Several significant changes occurred between 1992 and 1996. One was the rise of satellite television as a competitive alternative. The forerunners of the present DirecTV first offered programming via high-power DBS in 1994, and EchoStar's Dish Network became available in 1996. Other DBS services such as Primestar were also launched, but either failed or were absorbed by the surviving DBS services. DBS grew rapidly, aided by the passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. When the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act was passed in 1999, DBS subscribers accounted for less than 8 percent of customers paying for video services. By mid-2005, 27.7 percent were DBS subscribers.[9]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996,[10] which also contained broad restructuring provisions for the telephone industry, mandated that federal regulation of cable rates end by 1999 except for those in the basic tier. The act also allowed telephone companies to provide cable television services in local markets, potentially by delivering television programming over existing telephone lines.[†] Perhaps the most aggressive early attempt by a telephone company to enter the cable television market was launched in 1997 by Ameritech, the Bell operating company in Michigan and the surrounding states.[‡] Within two years of entering the television market, Ameritech had more than 300,000 subscribers, but very few in Illinois, where Ameritech faced a "level playing field law" subjecting new entrants to burdensome and long hearings and local mandates before they could offer service.[11] Ameritech was acquired by SBC, another regional operating company, in 1999, after which SBC sold off Ameritech's two-year-old cable business.[12]

Today, cable and telephone companies are increasingly competing with each other in multiple markets. Cable companies have generally had more success entering telephone markets, while telephone companies continue to face barriers to entry in much of the country due to the cable television franchising requirements.[13] As a result, telephone company entry has continued to occur, but at a slower rate than might otherwise have been expected.[§]

Recently both cable systems and telephone companies began offering "triple play" packages of telephone, television, and high-speed Internet to customers. Cable offers high-speed Internet service through cable modems and their existing wires, while telephone companies offer their high-speed Internet via digital subscriber lines (DSL). As competition to be the provider of multiple services develops, it is increasingly important for telephone companies to clear the hurdles to offering television service. Their two alternatives are to package their telephone and DSL lines either with a cable network of their own or with an existing DBS service. As telecommunications economist Thomas Hazlett has noted, "Telephone carriers can no longer afford not to be in the video delivery business."[14]

Michigan's Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act of 2006 took effect on Jan. 1, 2007. It significantly changed the nature of future franchise agreement negotiations between local governments and cable television service providers. Before this legislation, franchise contracts could be highly complex. The negotiation of the contract itself was a significant barrier to entry for any telephone company or new cable company considering competing with an established cable company. In addition, contracts contained negotiated terms for (1) access to public easements, rights to lay lines, and other rights needed from local governments in order to build the delivery system; (2) mandatory services the franchise must offer, in the form of programming packages, equipment, or studios for public access channels, or subsidies for local programmers; (3) system design, capacity, and technology mandates; (4) requirements to offer service to all or nearly all customers even when uneconomical to do so; (5) liability protections for the community in the form of insurance or bonding; and (6) taxes, in the form of fees.[15]

The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act has greatly simplified the franchise agreement process. Since the act is so new, it is difficult to assess how effective it will be. At least one attorney representing municipal governments has already proclaimed franchise reform a failure, based primarily on the slow rate of entry by new cable providers and lack of evidence of price competition.[¶] Early evidence, however, is that AT&T's "U-verse" service, now available in 160 communities in Michigan, has been expanding rapidly recently, and in response Comcast has lowered its Triple Play package from $134 per month in late 2006 (when franchise reform legislation was passed) to $125 today, with a one-year introductory rate of $99 per month.[16]

As the discussion above shows, the general trend in state and federal regulation has been toward allowing would-be television service providers greater ease of entry into local television and video service markets. The resulting reduction of barriers to market entry has increased competition between television service providers and substantially altered the cable television marketplace that existed when local government franchise agreements first mandated that cable television companies pay fees to provide public, educational and government access channels. Consumers' choices of providers and programming are much greater than they once were, even as local government regulation of cable television service has been restrained.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted from Cel

Wow while composing my post oodles was posted.  This is in reply to RP http://www.rotterdamny.net/m-1295352766/s-45/#num57

There is NO choice for City TW customers.  This was something those that created the franchise agreement with TW agreed to having the PEG fee.  Who all the folks that worked on creating the franchise agreement I am not sure of except I do know Morris, McCarthy the city council, Mayor, and I believe the "BOD" of SACC-TV at that time were part of it there may have been others.  Also PEG fees increased 30% this year not sure what the franchise agreement includes for the next following years.Will be interesting to find out as time goes on if they keep increasing.

All three channels are available via both cable technologies.  You don't have to have a digital box to receive them, a regular cable box will get them. In fact I believe much time and work went into getting all three channels available in both formats. This is why finally after years and years of channel 18 not being able to be used due to technical problems it was fixed. TW didn't care up till then.

No community should have to pay a PEG fee.  We are already paying through the nose for the cable service offered.

Did you know that the city rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by TW to the city.  A couple years ago it was $687K. I think it could be more now. It is part of the franchise agreement with TW.

Did you know the the city decides how much of the PEG fees go to Public Access TV.  Wonder how much they rake in?

It is confusing what Morris wants. Per the info found on channel 18 slides it says the four communities will not get their "meetings" aired on channel 18 if they don't contribute.  Then again now it appears he is going to get TW to yank all access to PEG to those communities that don't agree to PEG fees. Got me.

I am not sure if there wasn't a franchise agreement for PEG fees the channels would still be there.  Used to be mandated by FCC law to have the channels not sure it is anymore.

In the current configuration as had been prior to this newest franchise for the city we always paid a PEG fee and some of it, I believe only some of the fees collected go to the PEG channels operational expenses.  The city decides how much to give from the PEG fees collected to the operation of PEG channels which leads me to believe they get more than what they give to the PEG.

Keep in mind one very important thing.  

The Public is no longer a part of "Public" Access TV.  

The public does not have a say so in any of the operations, the programs aired etc. etc. of PEG.  It appears PEG is no longer a part of a 501(c)(3) non-profit incorporation configuration.  It is now totally a Morris thing as far as I can tell. Could be he is using the non-profit status of Proctors but then does that mean we have to become members of Proctors?  

Used to be SACC-TV had a Board of Directors and Bylaws. 501(c)(3) non profit which required these. They even posted all of this info... who was the Officers and BOD and the bylaws on their website.

Then in accordance with those incorporation laws were choices on the makeup of the incorporation.  SACC-TV decided to make it a "membership" type that for a membership fee due once a year all of the membership could offer input about the running of Public Access TV.  The public was a part of Public Access.

The City Council, McCarthy, The Mayor and the old SACC-TV Board of Directors and others are responsible for this current configuration with Morris in charge.  

I really would like to know who all was on that Board of Directors of SACC-TV back then because it appears there were many decisions made without the Membership at that time being informed of what was going on.

The best I can tell the new SACC Inc. goal is to get "Public" back into Public Access TV.

Quoted from TippyCanoe

Rotterdams PEG

FDG and Bobby G as our Late Nite Team from the Chalet or the $250,000 5,000sq/ft home on the small private lake up on putnam hill