Guest opinion

City government meetings, important programs such a “Every 15 Minutes” about safe teen driving—and even those critical evacuation messages during fires or other disasters, unfortunately don’t generate the kind of excitement from sponsors or the folks at the Nielsen television rating service to warrant coverage on our local commercial television stations.

Educational and governmental programs about thousands of other topics that are representative of the community find it hard to get the attention they deserve.

That’s why there are local education and government access channels that allow citizens in local neighborhoods to watch and present unique information, events and programming. Calabasas has a developed government access channel, CTV, and the cities of Agoura Hills (AHTV) and Westlake Village (WVTV) are expanding their local programming as well.

Our government access channels are vital outlets of information during emergencies and elections, and in the day-today operations of local governments throughout the area.

But this push for “video democracy” is taking on a new twist.

The two largest Bell telephone companies, SBC and Verizon, say they are ready to provide an alternative cable service to local communities.

It sounds good, because competition in video services, such as the recent advent of DBS satellite, means there will be more choices for consumers. But the catch here is that neither SBC nor Verizon wants to assume the same economic or social responsibilities that the cable operators must agree to under their franchise agreements with local governments.

At the local, state and federal levels these telephone giants have let it be known that their business models do not include paying franchise fees, or abiding by the same social obligations that government access channels must, because their profit margins might be compromised.

If phone companies are permitted to build as they wish, then the franchise fees that are paid to local governments will diminish and could spell the end of government access programming.

Think of the government channels as your “Electronic Public Greenspace” where democracy can be played out through a low cost, community dialogue.

Cable companies share a part of their profits as “rent” and these funds create an electronic public/private partnership for greater civic participation.

Not only do the franchise fees support the local access channels, but they also require the cable operators to invest in networks and services throughout their entire service areas, not just in affluent neighborhoods.

The more the neighborhoods in our area have access to broadband and cable services—and also training in the use of these technologies—the less the danger that we will be a community of technology haves and have

Even as the SBCs and the Verizons start to shortcut the local franchising process, the phone companies say they are trying to provide better video choices for consumers. But at what cost? Why should the “rent” paid to local government be waived for these huge, profitable corporations?

We need to let our local, state and federal officials know that we care about these services and that future video providers ought to play by the same rules as existing cable operators. Collecting a reasonable franchise fee as “rent” for the commercial use of the publicly owned “right-of-way” should be the same, no matter what private company is profiting, phone or cable.

To help keep the access TV channels alive, we call upon the citizens in our community to bring some attention to this important issue.

Maybe then, those who want to bring competitive video services to California communities will accept their public/private partnership responsibilities and financially support our collective Electronic Public Greenspace.

It is the fair and right thing to do.