Laserfiche WebLink
1 Ms. Anderson said other metropolitan cable franchise holders are <br /> 2 providing satisfactory community access programming for the areas they <br /> 3 serve ad she pleaded with the Councilmembers not to "judge what is <br /> 4 possible by what you've never had. " <br /> 5 Mr. Murphy gave his own perceptions about the failures of the cable <br /> 6 company to provide the community access programming which he had <br /> 7 believed made cable TV unique as compared to satellite or commercial <br /> 8 television. The Commissioner said what was lacking in what the cable <br /> 9 company offered now was user friendly equipment and the personnel <br /> 10 necessary for a successful community access program. He also pointed <br /> 11 out that when Cable TV North Central took over the franchise from Group <br /> 12 W, they also accepted the responsibility Group W had agreed to for <br /> 13 providing community access programming for the north suburban <br /> 14 communities who signed the franchise agreements. He also said the <br /> 15 company was very slow in responding to any questions or requests from <br /> 16 the Commission as a whole. <br /> 17 Ms. Anderson assured the Councilmembers that there was a "major <br /> 18 commitment" on the Cable Chairman's part to do what the cities wanted <br /> 19 done when the franchise was agreed upon many years ago. The Cable <br /> 20 Administrator indicated she was personally incensed and thought the <br /> 21 Councilmembers should also resent the fact that Cable TV North Central <br /> 22 had hired paid lobbyists to contact community leaders like themselves <br /> 23 to try to disseminate disinformation about community interest. in <br /> 24 community access programming, in spite of the fact that the Cable <br /> 25 Commission had passed an anti-lobbying resolution. <br /> 26 Ms. Anderson said contrary to what has been reported, Cable TV North <br /> 27 Central is not losing money, but had the best year they've every had <br /> 28 last year. The Cable Administrator recommended the Council pass the <br /> 29 resolution and "get into a non-profit situation where satisfactory <br /> 30 community access programming can be provided. " <br /> 31 Councilmember Enrooth indicated he considered the situation to be <br /> 32 "somewhat of a farce" because if the cable company is making the money <br /> 33 Ms. Anderson claims, and he said he had no reason to believe she wasn't <br /> 34 right, then their arguments for not spending the money they agreed to <br /> 35 for community access programming "were nothing but a joke. " However, <br /> 36 he added, because the 1984 Federal Communications Act removed the <br /> 37 regulation of rates from the cities, he perceived there was nothing the <br /> 38 City could do about it. <br /> 39 Ms. Anderson reminded the Councilmembers that when they had approved the <br /> 40 cable franchise four years ago the existing subscriber rate was $7.95, <br /> 41 which the cable company said would cover the costs of community access <br /> 42 -programming and now, with a raise to $14.95, that rate should certainly <br /> 43 still cover community access because there have been no additional <br /> 44 company equipment purchases or staff hired and no additional <br /> 45 requirements have been placed on any provision of the franchise. With <br /> 46 salaries being reduced and the Commission giving the cable company <br /> 47 relief along the line, the Cable Administrator indicated she had a hard <br /> 8 • <br />