June 2005

First come, non discriminatory Public Access (PA) scheduling

"First-come, nondiscriminatory" access to the medium of television is Public Access' mission. The Congressional intent of this mission was to increase the diversity of ideas. Diversity of ideas and the free expression of them are the foundation of a viable democracy. Assuming Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission, how might programs be scheduled on a "first-come, nondiscriminatory " basis?

How could a Public Access channel be scheduled on a first-come, nondiscriminatory basis?

Here is the CTPA proposed answer.

1. In the beginning there are 24 hours in a day.

2. A PA producer #1 submits a show, and

3. that show is broadcast 24 hours a day, until...

4. PA producer #2 submits a show, then...

5. Program #1 and #2 are broadcast 24 hours a day

6. and so on and so forth, each submitted program is added to the program lineup as it is submitted

What happens when the 24 hours are full, and a PA producer submits a program?

Using this formula;

1. Take the total time of the newly submitted program,

2. remove program #1, program #2, etc. until enough time to insert the newly submitted program is obtained.

3. Repeat step 1 whenever a new program is submitted

The above process is called a FIFO (First In First Out)

All this sound simple in theory, but how can it be done in practice?

Using digital technology, here is the process:

1. Submitted program is played back and digitized onto a 24 hour capacity digital video recorder.

2. Programs are digitize to the digital video recorder as they are submitted.

3. The channel is updated by swapping the digital video recorder with the broadcast digital video recorder as needed.

How much does all this cost?

Two digital video recorders cost about $1000.

Why isn't this being done?

Evidently the assumption (see paragraph 1) that "Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission" is incorrect.

Keeping the Public Out of Public Access Hawaiian Style

Greg Palast

CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/ 

Muckraker

Does the first amendment still have meaning?

Information-access bill stalls

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/24/ln/ln10p.html/?print=on

A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS

STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1197

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2005

RE: S.B. No. 625

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Third State Legislature

Regular Session of 2005

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, to which was referred S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to make public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access organizations more accountable to the public by requiring the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to include in PEG access organization contracts with DCCA, minimum requirements for public access to the records and meetings of PEG access organizations.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a private citizen submitted testimony in support of the intent of the measure, but with amendments. Olelo Community Television and two private citizens submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Office of Information Practices submitted comments.

Your Committee finds that public access to PEG organization records is critical to ensure the organizations' accountability. However, although the various PEG organizations are supported by funding from public cable subscribers, they differ in their policies for public access to board meetings and meeting records. This measure will help to secure the public's right to participate in PEG organization meetings and to access meeting records.

Your Committee has amended this measure by requiring DCCA to include the records requirements of chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), in PEG access organization contracts, thus setting UIPA as the standard for public access to the records of these organizations.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Update on Olelo versus OIP June 9, 2005

In September 2002, in response to an inquiry by the LWV-Kauai, the Office of Information and Practices (OIP) opined that because DCCA created these organizations for a government purpose, appoints their boards and otherwise influences these organizations, they are subject to state sunshine laws (HRS92 & 92f).

In 2004, `Olelo took OIP to court to challenge this opinion. On June 9, Judge Victoria Marks ruled that PEG entities are not state agencies, and therefore are not subject to open records laws. OIP is waiting to read the official ruling before deciding whether to appeal.

A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS

STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1197

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2005

RE: S.B. No. 625

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Third State Legislature

Regular Session of 2005

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, to which was referred S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to make public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access organizations more accountable to the public by requiring the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to include in PEG access organization contracts with DCCA, minimum requirements for public access to the records and meetings of PEG access organizations.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a private citizen submitted testimony in support of the intent of the measure, but with amendments. Olelo Community Television and two private citizens submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Office of Information Practices submitted comments.

Your Committee finds that public access to PEG organization records is critical to ensure the organizations' accountability. However, although the various PEG organizations are supported by funding from public cable subscribers, they differ in their policies for public access to board meetings and meeting records. This measure will help to secure the public's right to participate in PEG organization meetings and to access meeting records.

Your Committee has amended this measure by requiring DCCA to include the records requirements of chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), in PEG access organization contracts, thus setting UIPA as the standard for public access to the records of these organizations.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Information-access bill stalls

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/24/ln/ln10p.html/?print=on

Does the first amendment still have meaning?

Muckraker

Greg Palast

CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/ 

Keeping the Public Out of Public Access Hawaiian Style

First come, non discriminatory Public Access (PA) scheduling

"First come, non discriminatory access to the medium of television" is Public Access' mission. The Congressional intent of this mission was to increase the diversity of ideas. Diversity of ideas and the free expression of them are the foundation of a viable democracy. Assuming Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission, how might programs be scheduled on a "First come, non discriminatory" basis?

How could a Public Access channel be scheduled on a first come non-discriminatory basis?

Here is the CTPA proposed answer.

1. In the beginning there are 24 hours in a day.

2. A PA producer #1 submits a show, and

3. that show is broadcast 24 hours a day, until...

4. PA producer #2 submits a show, then...

5. Program #1 and #2 are broadcast 24 hours a day

6. and so on and so forth, each submitted program is added to the program lineup as it is submitted

What happens when the 24 hours are full, and a PA producer submits a program?

Using this formula;

1. Take the total time of the newly submitted program,

2. remove program #1, program #2, etc. until enough time to insert the newly submitted program is obtained.

3. Repeat step 1 whenever a new program is submitted

The above process is called a FIFO (First In First Out)

All this sound simple in theory, but how can it be done in practice?

Using digital technology, here is the process:

1. Submitted program is played back and digitized onto a 24 hour capacity digital video recorder.

2. Programs are digitize to the digital video recorder as they are submitted.

3. The channel is updated by swapping the digital video recorder with the broadcast digital video recorder as needed.

How much does all this cost?

Two digital video recorders cost about $1000.

Why isn't this being done?

Evidently the assumption (see paragraph 1) that "Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission" is incorrect.

Incapable of doing the simplest thing

The 1968 Sony introduction of the Porta Pak birthed the possibly of turning passive TV viewers into active TV producers. The possibility now in the hands of the individual was portable video, a new and powerful tool to be used for free self expression and positive social change. But alas without a TV channel to broadcast the speakers message it was incomplete, and cried to be made whole.

Nevertheless this portable video technology set imaginations on fire. Beehives of video collectives formed and gathering around the cool glow of the cathode ray tube to watch what they had wrought. They had no choice but to gather in groups around the new electronic fireplace because without a TV channel to broadcast the video it was the only way to watch the videos they were producing.

Providing the public access to a TV channel was the missing link that ?Public Access? was supposed to provide.

Job one of public access was to operate the TV channel for the speaking people. Job two is to provide access to training, and TV production technology so the people may speak on the public channel. Job three is to provide access on a first come non discriminatory basis.

How this elegant triad of tasks morphed into the dis-abling bureaucratic monster of "community building", "block programming" and "facilitated productions" is the progeny of an unholy forced marriage of Public Access with the Education and Government sectors.

The comingling of funds and responsibilities, the lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight has allowed G & E to dominate P, and G&E have treated P rather badly -- much like the mean step-sisters treated Cinderella. G and E are not twins, they are identical one-and-the-same. G&E is an organized special interest hierarchy exerting absolute control over the non-hierarchical, disorganized P. If G robs P to pay E -- E seldom complains. Poor P. Maui was only the most recent assault on P by G&E.

In 1969 at an art exhibit called “TV As A Creative Medium,” Paul Ryan in an art performance called Everyman's Möbius Strip, used a Sony Porta Pak to provide a private video booth which allowed people to record themselves on video, and watch themselves played back before the tape was erased for the next person.

After 36 years -- is it not obvious -- Public Access has failed this mission! To my knowledge no PEG entity has made access to an automated video booth a regular service to the public. Why? Because G&E will not permit immediate unfiltered direct access to the mass media by individual members of the public. G&E have manned the access gates assuring adequate access for themselves, while muting the public voice.

test 2

A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS

STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1197

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2005

RE: S.B. No. 625

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Third State Legislature

Regular Session of 2005

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, to which was referred S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to make public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access organizations more accountable to the public by requiring the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to include in PEG access organization contracts with DCCA, minimum requirements for public access to the records and meetings of PEG access organizations.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a private citizen submitted testimony in support of the intent of the measure, but with amendments. Olelo Community Television and two private citizens submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Office of Information Practices submitted comments.

Your Committee finds that public access to PEG organization records is critical to ensure the organizations' accountability. However, although the various PEG organizations are supported by funding from public cable subscribers, they differ in their policies for public access to board meetings and meeting records. This measure will help to secure the public's right to participate in PEG organization meetings and to access meeting records.

Your Committee has amended this measure by requiring DCCA to include the records requirements of chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), in PEG access organization contracts, thus setting UIPA as the standard for public access to the records of these organizations.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Information-access bill stalls

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/24/ln/ln10p.html/?print=on

Does the first amendment still have meaning?

Muckraker

Greg Palast

CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/ 

Keeping the Public Out of Public Access Hawaiian Style

First come, non discriminatory Public Access (PA) scheduling

"First come, non discriminatory access to the medium of television" is Public Access' mission. The Congressional intent of this mission was to increase the diversity of ideas. Diversity of ideas and the free expression of them are the foundation of a viable democracy. Assuming Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission, how might programs be scheduled on a "First come, non discriminatory" basis?

How could a Public Access channel be scheduled on a first come non-discriminatory basis?

Here is the CTPA proposed answer.

1. In the beginning there are 24 hours in a day.

2. A PA producer #1 submits a show, and

3. that show is broadcast 24 hours a day, until...

4. PA producer #2 submits a show, then...

5. Program #1 and #2 are broadcast 24 hours a day

6. and so on and so forth, each submitted program is added to the program lineup as it is submitted

What happens when the 24 hours are full, and a PA producer submits a program?

Using this formula;

1. Take the total time of the newly submitted program,

2. remove program #1, program #2, etc. until enough time to insert the newly submitted program is obtained.

3. Repeat step 1 whenever a new program is submitted

The above process is called a FIFO (First In First Out)

All this sound simple in theory, but how can it be done in practice?

Using digital technology, here is the process:

1. Submitted program is played back and digitized onto a 24 hour capacity digital video recorder.

2. Programs are digitize to the digital video recorder as they are submitted.

3. The channel is updated by swapping the digital video recorder with the broadcast digital video recorder as needed.

How much does all this cost?

Two digital video recorders cost about $1000.

Why isn't this being done?

Evidently the assumption (see paragraph 1) that "Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission" is incorrect.

Incapable of doing the simplest thing

The 1968 Sony introduction of the Porta Pak birthed the possibly of turning passive TV viewers into active TV producers. The possibility now in the hands of the individual was portable video, a new and powerful tool to be used for free self expression and positive social change. But alas without a TV channel to broadcast the speakers message it was incomplete, and cried to be made whole.

Nevertheless this portable video technology set imaginations on fire. Beehives of video collectives formed and gathering around the cool glow of the cathode ray tube to watch what they had wrought. They had no choice but to gather in groups around the new electronic fireplace because without a TV channel to broadcast the video it was the only way to watch the videos they were producing.

Providing the public access to a TV channel was the missing link that ?Public Access? was supposed to provide.

Job one of public access was to operate the TV channel for the speaking people. Job two is to provide access to training, and TV production technology so the people may speak on the public channel. Job three is to provide access on a first come non discriminatory basis.

How this elegant triad of tasks morphed into the dis-abling bureaucratic monster of "community building", "block programming" and "facilitated productions" is the progeny of an unholy forced marriage of Public Access with the Education and Government sectors.

The comingling of funds and responsibilities, the lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight has allowed G & E to dominate P, and G&E have treated P rather badly -- much like the mean step-sisters treated Cinderella. G and E are not twins, they are identical one-and-the-same. G&E is an organized special interest hierarchy exerting absolute control over the non-hierarchical, disorganized P. If G robs P to pay E -- E seldom complains. Poor P. Maui was only the most recent assault on P by G&E.

In 1969 at an art exhibit called “TV As A Creative Medium,” Paul Ryan in an art performance called Everyman's Möbius Strip, used a Sony Porta Pak to provide a private video booth which allowed people to record themselves on video, and watch themselves played back before the tape was erased for the next person.

After 36 years -- is it not obvious -- Public Access has failed this mission! To my knowledge no PEG entity has made access to an automated video booth a regular service to the public. Why? Because G&E will not permit immediate unfiltered direct access to the mass media by individual members of the public. G&E have manned the access gates assuring adequate access for themselves, while muting the public voice.

test

Ho`ike may owes half million dollars in architect fees in building purchase plan fiasco

Ho`ike, the Public, Education, and Government service provider on Kaua`i has found itself in deep kim chee, and they got there by spending cable subscriber's money.

According to the Jan 27, 2005 board minutes Ho`ike may owes half-a-million dollars on plans for a building that will never be built. Ho`ike funding is state mandated and paid for by public monies collected from cable subscriber's by Oceanic Time Warner. Ho`ike has an annual budget of around $300,000. According to their 2003 Managing Director's report, Ho`ike had no "new users" for the entire year.

Following is a quote from the minutes of the Jan 27, 2005 Ho`ike Board meeting:

Read the board minutes transcripts here: http://helpkauai.dns2go.com/hoikebdmin01272005.html

Listen to an audio transcript of the board meeting here: http://helpkauai.dns2go.com/archives/cat_audio.html 

The Ho`ike Board tried to keep their plans secret from the public by talking in “code” at Board meetings about the project, going into executive session to discuss their secret plan to spend public monies under a bylaw in conflict with Hawaii State Sunshine Law. This bylaw, used as a ruse to keep the public in the dark, is a bylaw in which the board gave itself the power to, “Entering into an executive meeting for “any issue deemed best to be kept confidential.” They certainly didn't want the public knowing about their plans to spend 8 million dollars of public money. When a request was made to inspect public records under State of Hawaii Open Records law, Ho`ike refused to comply. Following is a request to inspect the documents made on May 19, 2004 (almost 10 months ago). In violation of Hawaii Open Records Law and an Office of Information Practices opinion Managing Director J Robertson refused to allow inspection of the requested documents. Following is a partial transcription of the May 19, 2004 records request “to inspect the following records presented to the board members present at the May 13, 2004 Ho`ike board meeting, but not made available to the public in attendance.“

--- begin request ---

Subject: Request to inspect Records
From: Ed Coll
Reply To: To: Ed Coll
Date: 5/19/2004 5:24 PM
To: J Robertson

Managing Director J Robertson

This is a request to inspect the following records presented to the board members present at the May 13, 2004 Ho`ike board meeting, but not made available to the public in attendance.

All documents related to the Center for Art, Education, and Technology, including, but not limited too;

1. Articles of Organization of the Kauai Center for Arts, Education & Technology, LLC
2. Operating Agreement of the Kauai Center for Arts, Education & Technology, LLC
3. Fiscal Agreement of the Kauai Center for Arts, Education & Technology, LLC
4. Management Agreement of the Kauai Center for Arts, Education & Technology, LLC
5.All documents related to Mano Wai
6. the “Corporate Resolution” that was introduced for consideration and discussion
7. Memorandum of Intent to form the Kauai Center for Arts, Education & Technology, LLC

--- end request ---

Ho`ike is still refusing to comply with several OIP opinions to allow the public to inspect records, while `Olelo (Ho`ike's big brother on Oahu) has hired "lead attornies" and is suing the State Office of Information Practices claiming they are not covered by Open Records law.

Rowena Cobb, (former)Ho`ike Board President, real estate agent, and chief promoter of this fiasco served out her term leaving a half million dollar bill as an unplesent surprise for the new incoming Ho`ike board.

A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS

STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1197

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2005

RE: S.B. No. 625

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Third State Legislature

Regular Session of 2005

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, to which was referred S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to make public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access organizations more accountable to the public by requiring the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to include in PEG access organization contracts with DCCA, minimum requirements for public access to the records and meetings of PEG access organizations.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a private citizen submitted testimony in support of the intent of the measure, but with amendments. Olelo Community Television and two private citizens submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Office of Information Practices submitted comments.

Your Committee finds that public access to PEG organization records is critical to ensure the organizations' accountability. However, although the various PEG organizations are supported by funding from public cable subscribers, they differ in their policies for public access to board meetings and meeting records. This measure will help to secure the public's right to participate in PEG organization meetings and to access meeting records.

Your Committee has amended this measure by requiring DCCA to include the records requirements of chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), in PEG access organization contracts, thus setting UIPA as the standard for public access to the records of these organizations.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Information-access bill stalls

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/24/ln/ln10p.html/?print=on

Does the first amendment still have meaning?

Muckraker

Greg Palast

CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/ 

Keeping the Public Out of Public Access Hawaiian Style

First come, non discriminatory Public Access (PA) scheduling

"First come, non-discriminatory access to the medium of television" is Public Access' mission. The Congressional intent of this mission was to increase the diversity of ideas. Diversity of ideas and the free expression of them are the foundation of a viable democracy. Assuming Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission, how might programs be scheduled on a "First come, non discriminatory" basis?

How could a Public Access channel be scheduled on a first come non-discriminatory basis?

Here is the CTPA proposed answer.

1. In the beginning there are 24 hours in a day.

2. A PA producer #1 submits a show, and

3. that show is broadcast 24 hours a day, until...

4. PA producer #2 submits a show, then...

5. Program #1 and #2 are broadcast 24 hours a day

6. and so on and so forth, each submitted program is added to the program lineup as it is submitted

What happens when the 24 hours are full, and a PA producer submits a program?

Using this formula;

1. Take the total time of the newly submitted program,

2. remove program #1, program #2, etc. until enough time to insert the newly submitted program is obtained.

3. Repeat step 1 whenever a new program is submitted

The above process is called a FIFO (First In First Out)

All this sound simple in theory, but how can it be done in practice?

Using digital technology, here is the process:

1. Submitted program is played back and digitized onto a 24 hour capacity digital video recorder.

2. Programs are digitize to the digital video recorder as they are submitted.

3. The channel is updated by swapping the digital video recorder with the broadcast digital video recorder as needed.

How much does all this cost?

Two digital video recorders cost about $1000.

Why isn't this being done?

Evidently the assumption (see paragraph 1) that "Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission" is incorrect.

Incapable of doing the simplest thing

The 1968 Sony introduction of the Porta-Pak birthed the possibly of turning passive TV viewers into active TV producers. The possibility now in the hands of the individual was portable video, a new and powerful tool to be used for free self expression and positive social change. But alas without a TV channel to broadcast the speakers message it was incomplete, and cried to be made whole.

Nevertheless this portable video technology set imaginations on fire. Beehives of video collectives formed and gathering around the cool glow of the cathode ray tube to watch what they had wrought. They had no choice but to gather in groups around the new electronic fireplace because without a TV channel to broadcast the video it was the only way to watch the videos they were producing.

Providing the public access to a TV channel was the missing link that ?Public Access? was supposed to provide.

Job one of public access was to operate the TV channel for the speaking people. Job two is to provide access to training, and TV production technology so the people may speak on the public channel. Job three is to provide access on a first come non discriminatory basis.

How this elegant triad of tasks morphed into the dis-abling bureaucratic monster of "community building", "block programming" and "facilitated productions" is the progeny of an unholy forced marriage of Public Access with the Education and Government sectors.

The comingling of funds and responsibilities, the lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight has allowed G & E to dominate P, and G&E have treated P rather badly -- much like the mean step-sisters treated Cinderella. G and E are not twins, they are identical one-and-the-same. G&E is an organized special interest hierarchy exerting absolute control over the non-hierarchical, disorganized P. If G robs P to pay E -- E seldom complains. Poor P. Maui was only the most recent assault on P by G&E.

In 1969 at an art exhibit called “TV As A Creative Medium,” Paul Ryan in an art performance called Everyman's Möbius Strip, used a Sony Porta Pak to provide a private video booth which allowed people to record themselves on video, and watch themselves played back before the tape was erased for the next person.

After 36 years -- is it not obvious -- Public Access has failed this mission! To my knowledge no PEG entity has made access to an automated video booth a regular service to the public. Why? Because G&E will not permit immediate unfiltered direct access to the mass media by individual members of the public. G&E have manned the access gates assuring adequate access for themselves, while muting the public voice.

A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS

STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1197

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2005

RE: S.B. No. 625

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Third State Legislature

Regular Session of 2005

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, to which was referred S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, entitled:

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to make public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access organizations more accountable to the public by requiring the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to include in PEG access organization contracts with DCCA, minimum requirements for public access to the records and meetings of PEG access organizations.

The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a private citizen submitted testimony in support of the intent of the measure, but with amendments. Olelo Community Television and two private citizens submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Office of Information Practices submitted comments.

Your Committee finds that public access to PEG organization records is critical to ensure the organizations' accountability. However, although the various PEG organizations are supported by funding from public cable subscribers, they differ in their policies for public access to board meetings and meeting records. This measure will help to secure the public's right to participate in PEG organization meetings and to access meeting records.

Your Committee has amended this measure by requiring DCCA to include the records requirements of chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), in PEG access organization contracts, thus setting UIPA as the standard for public access to the records of these organizations.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 625, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Information-access bill stalls

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/24/ln/ln10p.html/?print=on

Are Hawaii Public Access Television Corporations Ultra Top Secret Organizations?

Does the first amendment still have meaning?

Muckraker

Greg Palast

CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/ 

Keeping the Public Out of Public Access Hawaiian Style

First come, non discriminatory Public Access (PA) scheduling

"First come, non discriminatory access to the medium of television" is Public Access' mission. The Congressional intent of this mission was to increase the diversity of ideas. Diversity of ideas and the free expression of them are the foundation of a viable democracy. Assuming Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission, how might programs be scheduled on a "First come, non discriminatory" basis?

How could a Public Access channel be scheduled on a first come non-discriminatory basis?

Here is the CTPA proposed answer.

1. In the beginning there are 24 hours in a day.

2. A PA producer #1 submits a show, and

3. that show is broadcast 24 hours a day, until...

4. PA producer #2 submits a show, then...

5. Program #1 and #2 are broadcast 24 hours a day

6. and so on and so forth, each submitted program is added to the program lineup as it is submitted

What happens when the 24 hours are full, and a PA producer submits a program?

Using this formula;

1. Take the total time of the newly submitted program,

2. remove program #1, program #2, etc. until enough time to insert the newly submitted program is obtained.

3. Repeat step 1 whenever a new program is submitted

The above process is called a FIFO (First In First Out)

All this sound simple in theory, but how can it be done in practice?

Using digital technology, here is the process:

1. Submitted program is played back and digitized onto a 24 hour capacity digital video recorder.

2. Programs are digitize to the digital video recorder as they are submitted.

3. The channel is updated by swapping the digital video recorder with the broadcast digital video recorder as needed.

How much does all this cost?

Two digital video recorders cost about $1000.

Why isn't this being done?

Evidently the assumption (see paragraph 1) that "Public Access organizations have a desire to fulfill there mission" is incorrect.

Incapable of doing the simplest thing

The 1968 Sony introduction of the Porta Pak birthed the possibly of turning passive TV viewers into active TV producers. The possibility now in the hands of the individual was portable video, a new and powerful tool to be used for free self expression and positive social change. But alas without a TV channel to broadcast the speakers message it was incomplete, and cried to be made whole.

Nevertheless this portable video technology set imaginations on fire. Beehives of video collectives formed and gathering around the cool glow of the cathode ray tube to watch what they had wrought. They had no choice but to gather in groups around the new electronic fireplace because without a TV channel to broadcast the video it was the only way to watch the videos they were producing.

Providing the public access to a TV channel was the missing link that ?Public Access? was supposed to provide.

Job one of public access was to operate the TV channel for the speaking people. Job two is to provide access to training, and TV production technology so the people may speak on the public channel. Job three is to provide access on a first come non discriminatory basis.

How this elegant triad of tasks morphed into the dis-abling bureaucratic monster of "community building", "block programming" and "facilitated productions" is the progeny of an unholy forced marriage of Public Access with the Education and Government sectors.

The comingling of funds and responsibilities, the lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight has allowed G & E to dominate P, and G&E have treated P rather badly -- much like the mean step-sisters treated Cinderella. G and E are not twins, they are identical one-and-the-same. G&E is an organized special interest hierarchy exerting absolute control over the non-hierarchical, disorganized P. If G robs P to pay E -- E seldom complains. Poor P. Maui was only the most recent assault on P by G&E.

In 1969 at an art exhibit called “TV As A Creative Medium,” Paul Ryan in an art performance called Everyman's Möbius Strip, used a Sony Porta Pak to provide a private video booth which allowed people to record themselves on video, and watch themselves played back before the tape was erased for the next person.

After 36 years -- is it not obvious -- Public Access has failed this mission! To my knowledge no PEG entity has made access to an automated video booth a regular service to the public. Why? Because G&E will not permit immediate unfiltered direct access to the mass media by individual members of the public. G&E have manned the access gates assuring adequate access for themselves, while muting the public voice.