Members of the Cable Advisory Council

I have considered it a privilege to have been working with you over the past few years, so many of you have been at this much longer than I. In the few years that I have participated in the work of the council, I stand here and salute your hard work and dedication.

In the past couple of years you/ we have labored in a battle as to who and what purpose, the Council was to serve and to examine those who have been entrusted with stakeholder dollars and how those funds have been and would be utilized in the future to serve the Public, Educational and Government Access system here in Area 2 as well as other cable customer issues.

The Council has focused on the PEG system as it has been the most sorely needed to be addressed factor of the Cable system. Something I am certain the third party provider feels is not necessary.

The Council, recognizes that the recent DPUC decisions in our area for PEG access have been totally contradictory in relation to the directives and the goals of the PEG access system, formats and funding and thusly how the Government & Educational Access TV would be interpreted.

The actions taken where not just intentions our council shares, but are reflected in the utilization and operation of a majority of locally successful Public ,Educational and Government access systems nationally , internationally and even those that border Area 2 and found throughout the state here in Connecticut.

We are confounded but not surprised by the turn of events.

We were out lobbied by the Third Party Provider , Sound View Community Media and thusly this has not only lead to the continuation of what can be called non local but extraneous and irrelevant content on the PEG system but as well leaves a wholesale and self serving, re interpretation of what Public Access Television is. This of course includes the use of the funds collected from the 98,000 stakeholders in our Cable Area or nearly the 19,000 Stakeholders in the town of Fairfield alone who in fact the system collectively belongs to and we The Cable Advisory Council, represent regardless of the actions of the Third Party Provider, and as exercised by the DPUC. These turn of events virtually leaves most of our town’s stakeholders with no voice in how their dollars are to be used for PEG access.

However, we are stuck with this outcome and in that I want to say I admire the courage and fortitude that those towns that have kept up the battle for independence of their PEG commissions and those coordinators who have stuck to the premise that PEG is the property of the stakeholder and whose purpose it is to provide local content primarily in the areas of local Government and Education. I can as well stand here and say, not all towns see it the same.

I want to further compliment those elected officials and municipalities who trust their coordinators and producers.

Government & Educational Access TV is now more directly housed under the auspices of the municipality. I want to congratulate those elected officials who are unafraid to appear before their communities, in live formats at various town meetings and yes, endure opposition as well as recognition on issues that may or may not supplement their political futures but in fact are faithfully executing the business of the towns they lead and that reflects the ebb and flow of local government and not the needs of electioneering or political ambition.

We on the council recognize the purpose of open government that public access Government TV is designated to provide. That its’ purpose is not determined by the Council, the Third Party Provider or those elected officials who are allowed custodial oversight.

The challenge to support open government is the intent of the council as it is the stakeholders in each town of Area 2 and we the council, regardless of other self serving interpretations, represent . Stakeholders are of all political backgrounds. And thusly they are entitled access to the system.

There has been some forward motion on this issue but as many here tonight know, not without continual opposition. We all know as well that this has benefitted few and thus the majority of stakeholders who provide the funding have seen very little return on their investment in regard to the intended purpose of local G TV.

Have we failed..It might be better stated that we as a Council were denied access. A number of our towns invested tens of thousands of their dollars to present and defend their right to these airwaves. Sounds kind of stupid and unnecessary considering it is called Public Access television…But the fear by the Third Party Provider of the idea that the more open the system, the more accessible it could become would somehow diminish it’s value. But that was their position and they thusly invested many thousands of dollars of Stakeholder money in attorneys and lobbying maneuvers instead to their primary obligation to the support of viable local programming and content. Their failure is still today reflected in black screens, one dimensional programming and the continued effort to limit town specific access. On PEG channels 77, 78, 79.

There is no true delineation for the highly versatile system that has been provided by the INET. To limit or the fear of a combined or simultaneous regional or town specific application of the PEG system utilizing a 24/7 format or whatever configuration of scheduled programming hours in either presentation parameter “local or regional”.

Bluntly stated the only negative recognition would be the lack of presence of the Third Party Provider. In that sense, the status of such an entity is wrongfully ignoring the evolution of the technology that better serves the public it is responsible to. Instead it provides sub standard service because it fears loss of it’s annual funding package that it seeks primarily to protect. That is the only deciding factor for the Third Party Provider.

Fortunately or unfortunately they should be prepared to accept change and grow with change regardless of the outcome.. sort of like the disappearance of pay phones with the advent of cell phones. Or as they have forced the voice of the stakeholders to do in hobbling the Cable Advisory Council via the DPUC mechanism..

At the very least the Third Party Provider should have been forced to recognize the negative weight this continued opposition to the technology , that in turn is depriving the public, who their compact is supposedly dedicated to serve.

Wholesale re transmission of satellite supplied content from entities from outside not just the local community, but the state is not local content. Regardless of patriotic value or national situations.

Blaming the towns for not supplying content when the Third Party Provider provides no funding to do so is as disingenuous as failing to recognize the capability of the INET system and the individuality of the six towns of Area 2 by proclaiming a “Regional Philosophy” of programming which only in fact allows Sound View Community Media to centralize the funding from the stakeholders and not share it individually with the towns of Fairfield, Orange, Woodbridge, Bridgeport , Stratford and Milford. All municipalities that would like to provide local programming in Education and Government activities and need funding assistance but are denied by this “regional philosophy”.

The Council tried however and in that we won some minor issues for our towns. if not anything , the ability for our municipalities, if not the Council, to continue this battle.

The Council has been wounded and leaves the six towns stakeholders we represent with little or no voice. As well as any guarantee to access of the Sound View Controlled funding provided by the Cablevision / Stakeholder contribution. The Third Party Provider has been mandated by the DPUC decision to supply and split up among the six towns a one time payout of $60,000. This is out of the nearly $6,715,000 Sound View Community Media will receive over the next 11 years from Subscriber/ Stakeholder funds and is in addition to the nearly $1,000,000 it maintains in reserve bank accounts from the same resource. Stakeholder funding.

The Cable Advisory Council is faced with relevance at this juncture. And how do we best serve it.

I suggest we attend to the towns we come from if at all possible. As the battle over air time and Town Specific use is still going on. I can only hope that your elected officials remain committed to the value of Government Access TV and the valuable contribution each subscriber makes to support local Government and Educational Access TV. We will do all we can to inform your school systems to help embrace the extraordinary opportunity the INET can provide. With that success perhaps Public Access will prevail as a viable entity instead of the uninspired requirement filling the channels at the present here in Area 2. We on the council understand this and that job remains regardless of monthly meetings, politics or self serving ambitions.

Gerry Speno