1 Reinventing PEG Access in Atlanta TelePAC Subcommittee on Public, Educational, and Governmental Television

2 Subcommittee Members Beverly Molander Earl Johannaber Hans Klein (Chair)

3 Report: 3 Parts Recommendations PEG in general –“the PEG model” PEG in Atlanta

4 Some Caveats A surprisingly complex system –Many organizations –Long history –Complex interactions (conflict) –Federal and local regulation –New technology Study had limited resources –Time Thinking has evolved –Research continued past June Our recommendations –Suggestive, not definitive

5 Our Focus Most focus –People TV (24) –City Channel (26) Some focus: –Clark-Atlanta TV (23) –APS (22) –Fire Channel (25) Also: –Atlanta Community Technology Centers (ACTI/“Cyber Centers”) People TV is the most complex entity

6 For Each Entity Assessment –How is it doing Improvement? –What can it do better Technology? –Opportunities in the digital revolution

7 City Channel Assessment –Performing its mission well Improvements? –Needs a program guide Technology? –City Channel is at the cutting edge of innovation. –It is pioneering the use of digital technology web archives of City Council meetings –On the web, it has a “programming guide” List of archives –Atlanta is a national leader –Quiet innovation

8 Clark-Atlanta Television Assessment –Seems to be performing its mission well Improvements? –Needs a program guide –Has an on-line program guide, but Out of date (lists college lectures) Actual programming is quite different –e.g. NAACP leadership conference, not “earth sciences” –(actual programming seems more relevant to community) Technology? –No assessment

9 APS Assessment Improvement? –Needs a program guide Technology?

10 Fire Channel In flux –Channel to be reassigned? Do not know current plans –(Plans are not known) This resource is currently in play –Opportunity for innovation?

11 ACTI Impressive program –Ambitious –Reported many achievements Now ended –Lacked sustainable model –One-time infusion of funds –Regrettable loss of momentum Continuity? –Atlanta Workforce Development program –Little information on the WWW Needs a “program guide”

12 People TV: Assessment Public access television model is aging –Goals still relevant Local democracy –But other community media work better WWW Local examples –Beltline debate –Recycling news and education –Panhandling debate –Parking deck debate

13 Assessment: Who Benefits from People TV? Producers –The public? Community groups? –Or a few individuals? A “video club”? Using non-digital technology Viewers –Needs a program guide

14 People TV: Improvement? Implement existing commitments –Newsletter, program guide, advertisements But: –Better implementation of aging model is not the solution –Fundamentally, the model needs to be updated –Shift to the new community media From analog video –To the Internet

15 People TV: Technology? What role for public access television? –The Internet-based community media is already thriving –What role for publicly-funded entity? Reinvent People TV Huge need for training –Digital video –Web page – Access to equipment –People can buy their own, but some need access Free bandwidth –Equivalent of a cable TV channel

16 Recommendations for Policy Players

17 City Council Enforce existing obligations (PTV) –Program guide, newsletter Diffuse best practice –City Channel helps other stations When renewing cable franchise –Obtain bandwidth Open up system governance (PTV) –Viewers and producers on board

18 All PEG Stations Coordinating Committee –Promote new ideas –Innovation-supportive environment Develop expertise in new media –“human capital” Use the new media –On-line program guide, newsletter

19 People TV People TV’s biggest asset –Its public funding Challenge: –Reinvent itself for today’s world A thriving community media exists –But not based on cable television Seek a way to contribute –Creative thinking needed

20 Process, Not Product There is no easy “solution” But there is tremendous opportunity Promote a process for –Learning –Encouraging innovation –Mutual assistance –Risk taking