Save Access

What this article fails to mention is that the current Public, Educational and Govenernmental (PEG) channels are often the primary source for providing ongoing local electorial and debate coverage. Eliminate these PEG channels and facilities and you eliminate the providers of this content. Additionally, digital 'on-demand' content doesn't require the elimination of existing channels.

from: Wall Street Journal

Could Giving Voters On-Demand Content Get Them Interested?
By PETER GRANT
May 31, 2006; Page B1

Cable subscribers increasingly are using so-called on-demand technology to watch programs like "The Sopranos" or old movies whenever they want. But the technology also has great potential as a tool for making our democratic system work better.

Consider what was available on demand on Time Warner's cable system in Lincoln, Neb., just before that state's primary election earlier this month. Voters were able to watch the debates between candidates running for the state legislature, for treasurer and for secretary of state. While not the most scintillating television, voters who took their responsibility seriously were able to be informed, free of charge, before heading to the ballot box.

With just a few clicks of the remote, they were able to watch the debates whenever they wanted. Otherwise, voters who wanted to watch the state treasurer debate, for example, had to be in front of the TV set on a workday afternoon, or else record it.

Shane Osborn, the former Navy pilot running for state treasurer, partly credits his higher visibility from the debate for his defeat of the incumbent. "In today's world, it's difficult for people to find the time to be informed on all the issues," he says. "They need to have it fit into their schedules."

Few would disagree that a more informed electorate is desirable. In a survey of eligible voters just before the 2000 election by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, 84% of respondents couldn't identify either the incumbent or the challenger in their U.S. congressional races.

On-demand TV could fight this trend by airing debates and public meetings, such as city-council hearings. There also could be channels devoted to such simple but useful subjects as the voting records of elected officials.

But will cable operators fulfill the political potential of on-demand? There is encouraging precedent here. The industry created the public-affairs network C-SPAN in the late 1970s in recognition of its civic responsibility. Also, some big cable operators, such as Time Warner, have been exploring possible programs. Comcast, the largest U.S. cable company, created "Candidates on Demand" for the 2004 senate race in Colorado and for the New Jersey gubernatorial race in 2005. Voters were able to watch, for free, recordings made by candidates stating their positions on major issues. (Neither Time Warner nor Comcast give viewership figures.)

"If viewers weren't interested in all the issues, they could just watch those that were important to them," says David Cohen, a Comcast executive vice president. "They could pause it, watch it again and say to their wife, 'Listen to this.' "

Some cable operators, however, let executives at the local level choose on-demand content, and they have little incentive to explore its political potential. Others feel they've met their obligations with the public-access channels they are required by law to make available. They also point to the minuscule viewership most of these public-access channels get, as well as the offensive content they occasionally contain, ranging from nudity to white supremacy. Cable companies can't legally prohibit content on certain access channels if it conforms to guidelines, which are pretty loose.

It might be time to re-examine cable's public-access requirements in light of this new technology. The timing is perfect because Congress is in the midst of considering a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. The discussions in both the House and the Senate already have touched on the fees cable companies must contribute to public-access channels. Perhaps they could negotiate a trade-off of some public-access channels for more on-demand content.

No one is suggesting public-access channels be eliminated. Some attract a decent audience and provide important services, giving a forum to underserved communities and offering educational shows. Also, public-access channels are available to practically all cable subscribers on analog tiers of programming, while only subscribers who pay extra for digital cable can get on-demand.

But most cable companies plan to switch to all-digital systems. Operators and customers alike would see a big benefit from moving government and political content to on-demand. Operators would find more precious bandwidth to free up for high-definition content. Viewers would be better served by having, say, a city-council meeting available on-demand rather than on an analog channel. In addition to convenience, they could fast-forward through the pothole committee report to get to the matters that concern them.

Unfortunately, a trade-off won't be easy. The Alliance for Community Media, a lobbying group for public access, opposes giving back bandwidth. Some elected officials also are wary of yet more visibility. C-SPAN cameras weren't allowed in the U.S. Senate until seven years after they started in the House.

"You have people who say, 'I got elected without this,' " says Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chief executive. "They don't want to change."

Write to Peter Grant at peter.grant@wsj.com.