[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Covering the city council
Its my understanding that yes, a public access station could apply for an
LPTV license. On the other hand, a "local orginiation (LO)" station might
not be able to because it is operated by the cable company rather than a
non-profit org. like a public access station.
There has been speculation that our local access station had been
considering the matter - but it has lost its momentium.
Former Asst. Mgr.
Medford Community Television - TV 3
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Fitzpatrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: David Moisan <email@example.com>;
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: Covering the city council
> Could a public access TV station apply for a LPTV educational license? or
> are they only supposed to be exclusive to the cable system.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of David
> > Moisan
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:43 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Covering the city council
> > At 11:47 PM 3/26/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Are these carried by the cable company or by the local access channel?
> > >They are usually different entities. In Brookline, the Board of
> > >Selectmen, Town Meeting, etc. are carried by Brookline Access
> > >Television, not by Cablevision.
> > >
> > Moreover, this even depends on the franchise agreement that a city makes
> > with its cable company. Some public access studios are run by
> > the company.
> > Others--like Salem Access TV, where I am on the board--are independent
> > not-for-profit corporations.
> > In general, cable companies don't want to run public access, and try to
> > shift it off to someone else, or even close it down. The latter
> > has happened in Beverly, and M1, which also owns Marblehead's community
> > station, wants to divest itself of city-council telecasting.
> > It's ironic that RCN was the topic of that selectman's meeting
> > but I don't think it was purposeful. They just flat out don't want to
> > it and were it not for federal law, SATV's 3 channels as well as other
> > public access channels, would just as soon belong to commercial
> > concerns or
> > even PBS (which considers public access unprofessional and beneath their
> > concern except for the bandwidth they represent.)
> > Take care,
> > Dave
> > Not speaking for SATV
> > David Moisan, N1KGH ARES/SKYWARN email@example.com
> > Invisible Disability:
> > http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/invisible_disability.html
> > ATS-909 FAQ: http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/sangean/ats909faq.html