Reporting From the Trenches in the Battle Over the Future of PEG

From a human interest point of view, I could hear the concern creeping into Lynn’s voice as we chatted about the possibility of analog PEG channels going off the air, as they were scheduled to do on January 15th.

It wasn’t concern so much for the government channel she works with, which has already taken the initiative to start offering their channel--HOM-TV 21--online, both live and on-demand, through Granicus. (They also have their own equipment and so haven’t been affected by Comcast’s closing of the public access studios.)

Instead, she dwelled on the plight of the local high schools, who have channels that are totally reliant on the PEG system for distribution, meaning they face the prospect of simply going off the air for many people in their community.

She also didn’t seem overly excited at the prospect of having to answer angry calls from elderly constituents who, she says, are woefully unprepared for and unaware of the fact that they might lose access to PEG channels on their analog service.

In total, estimates have shown that nearly half a million people in Michigan could be affected by Comcast’s decision to remove PEG channels from the analog tier.

For now some of these concerns have been postponed as while we were chatting on Monday, Meridian was successfully arguing its case in front of a judge to put a hold on Comcast’s planned push to turn off analog PEG channels, which was originally scheduled for the 15th but has now been delayed.

But this issue is far from being resolved, and the potential impact of the decision in this case could reverberate across the state and the nation. If Comcast wins, others will likely follow in pulling back their support for the PEG community.

Here’s the crazy thing about all this: Lynn and her fellow PEG people aren’t against being on the digital tier. In fact, they’re eager to see how going digital will potentially improve the experience they’re able to deliver to their viewers. It may even introduce the possibility of HD. The problem isn’t going digital, it’s the timing of it all.

What PEG people can’t understand is why they have to move over to the digital tier when so many other channels get to stay analog. Why make local government meetings go digital when the Food Network can remain analog?

Of course, the simple answer is that PEG doesn’t make the cable operator any money. Then there’s the question of how much of an obligation should the cable operator be under in having to take the public good into account when managing their private network.

But here’s the thing I really don’t get: while I understand how cable operators may think it’s not fair they have to carry PEG channels when satellite doesn’t, what makes no sense to me is how these efforts to fight against PEG will help the public perception of their services. I mean, sure, moving PEG to digital frees up more room for digital channels, but is it worth the potential cost of losing subscribers to other TV offerings?

Especially in a time when satellite is pulling ahead on HD and telcos are rapidly pushing to offer a video product, it seems unwise to further tarnish their image as the greedy cable company.

On the flipside, are cable systems still the best delivery platform that reaches the most people? It seems to me like their marketshare for video is increasingly under attack, and therefore the percentage of people in a community their service is delivered to has to be on the decline.

Ultimately, the only platform that can reach everybody, regardless of the pipes running into their house, is the Internet.

And some in the PEG community are starting to realize that, like Channel 6 in St. Clair, MI, which is in the process of rebranding itself at www.yourctv.org. Not to mention Meridian’s own efforts to get online through Granicus.

By and large, this developing legal situation seems like a prime example of the growing pains associated with being stuck in between the cycles of technological innovation. If everyone were already on the digital tier, PEG would gladly give up its analog channels. And if everyone were already online, PEG channels could reach the community without having to have dedicated spectrum from the cable operator.

But at the same time, if we believe in the need for robust local community media, we cannot ignore the plight of PEG channels. If we allow franchise holders to simply stop living up to their obligations, we risk losing the voices that PEG has helped make heard.

Instead, I’d suggest we need to look at two things:

What can PEG mean in the 21st century?

How can we refocus the system to support these forward-looking goals?

And forward-looking is the key term here. Now is not the time to only be lamenting over the loss of a bygone paradigm. Nor should it be an opportunity for corporations to increase profits at the expense of local community media.

Instead we should be looking to the future to find solutions, searching for ways to shore up the fundamental goals of PEG: to provide access to the tools and skills necessary to produce content, to provide a platform for the distribution of that and related content, and to provide a way to unite people with information that’s relevant to their communities.

So let’s start that process. What can PEG 2.0 mean? How can we achieve and improve upon these fundamental goals of PEG through the use of information technology?

I know I have my ideas, which I’ll be sharing in later posts. But don’t hesitate to share your ideas by adding a comment below.

Only by working together can we find a new solution to these significant challenges, and in so doing save and improve the state of local community media in this country.