After all these years, COX has their new franchise agreement that will allow them to be "more competitive" with AT&T, and just wait it'll get worse...I know all the pop culture crazed low-lifes only think of Waynes World when Public Access is mentioned, but lots of people have done good things with this tool that SHOULD be there for people if they want it. COX has to make concessions due to the fact that they are allowed to lay their cables on public lands...this is why Anthony didn't acquiesce to their lobbyists (as did Jim Roth..that great progressive!) to ease regulations on COX phone.
Now, this isn't new news...this occurred in December but I just discovered this and am not happy...this is more than the proverbial slippery slope. If you enjoy CSPAN, enjoy it while it lasts if you aren't going to do anything to fight these turds.

You're either misinformed or I'm misunderstanding you. C-SPAN is not public access, Channel 20 is. Hehe calling C-SPAN "public access" or public anything would be an insult. And I don't understand what COX is doing to C-SPAN or Channel 20?

Misunderstanding.

There use to be, for as long as COX has been here "public access" where you are me could go to COX, take a short class, and then produce our own show about anything reasonable. It was part of the franchise agreement, as is cspan...a cost saving way of them providing a public service rather than paying huge amounts of money for laying their cables in city owned land.

Blazer, I didn't know the public access provisions were changing! Would you happen to have a link to something to read? I agree with you - what a mistake. How did the Corporation Commission (bought and paid for by the very people they are supposed to regulate) get involved? I thought local cable agreements were still part of municipal government. With all the information outlets we have today you would think it would be easier to keep informed. I've found, for me at least, that the overload of information allows more things to slip by under the radar. Just too much available and it's hard to keep up with it all.

This is bad. I would love to hear more. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

There was a new franchise agreement in December. It wasn't reported because it was so detrimental to people who care about these things, gotta keep the masses at bay you know?

I called COX a few weeks ago, inquiring about doing a public access show and after getting transferred several times, a fellow told me it's gone and that the channel has been handed over to the city. If people go speak at city council, and demand the city find a way to create a public access type of time slot on channel 20, then it is possible...but highly unlikely that we could get this great thing back....

As far as the corporation commission is concerned, from what I understand they regulate phone and therefore fell for the lobbyists crap that they MUST deregulate COX phone or they will have to shut down and all get jobs wandering the back alley of Denny's picking up trash and selling it on ebay or whatever. The regulations existed for the same reasons as Cspan must be aired and that public acess previously be made available...as a cheap trade out for using public lands to lay cables.


This is an absolute sickness. Not just what has happened, but the fact that we have just sat back and allowed it to happen. But please cheer up, things will get a lot worse if we don't act QUICK.

City of Oklahoma City Video Programming Services (http://www.okc.gov/pim/franchise.html)

City of Oklahoma City Video Programming Services (http://www.okc.gov/pim/franchise.html)

I read through the modifications to the agreement (per the link above) and found nothing of relevance to the issue of public access. Was there something there that clarified this issue? Did I miss it?

Was there something there that clarified this issue? Did I miss it?The thread began
After all these years, COX has their new franchise agreement ... so I thought it might be interesting to actually read the franchise agreement. I did and thought maybe someone else might want to read it as well.

Public Access is addressed in several places including:
Provided, the City and the Company agree that Subsections 11-36(a)(5), (a)(6) and (b) of Chapter 11 of the Code, as amended, shall control the public access channel.

Looks like it was introduced 8/28/2007, passed on 9/11/2007, and became effective 10/15/2007. An "IP Video Services" portion is dated 3/27/2007.

There's also a separate link for "City Channel 20" that I found interesting.

Thanks, Flinty. I wasn't being sarcastic. I looked it over and didn't see any specific mention of public access. I missed it. So....per the thread topic...do you read that agreement and feel that Blazer is wrong? I'm wondering myself. Maybe Blazer can point us to where we need to go to read about any proposed changes.

So is the city still providing their "CityVue 20" coverage of council meetings and such, or did it go as well?

I think it is an interesting and complex subject about which I was abysmally ignorant.

It appears to me that around the country a good many communities are losing their public access channels. So Oklahoma City has managed to preserve ours which is certainly a good thing. On the other hand it also appears that the management of the access channel is entirely up to the City. In that regard I think Blazer is correct. That this could be done is not such a big change depending upon when in the last 4 decades you check the federal law.

There are groups interested access. One example is Save Access (http://saveaccess.org/).

There are a couple of primary reasons for changes in the law governing cable and broadband communication. One is pressure on the cable providers by competitors including direct and indirect. Direct competition is mainly from the telephone companies. Indirect includes various Internet outlets. One reaction of the cable providers to such pressure is to attempt to reduce cost.

Another factor is technical although it certainly has a cost/price attribute. That is the continuing movement away from analog towards digital methods.

Very interesting.

I thought it was fascinating that Barry Goldwater authored the 1984 bill that required local public access and prohibited control of content.

Growing up in Seattle, I'll never forget such quality public access shows as Jerkbeast, The Reverend Bruce, The Brody and Teina show, The Bonghit championships, The Kurt Kobain suicide conspiracy guy, naked creepy silent chick and porno clip guy.

I love public access because this is usually what ends up happening: YouTube - Public Access Guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mjAef7DXVbI)


************************************
Rev. Bruce - YouTube - Rev Bruce Howard Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=c-5G-fltPEQ)
Jerkbeast - YouTube - "Jerkbeast" Trailer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0l629drGPw8&feature=related) , YouTube - Jerkbeast - Pretty Hard (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bu8VDypppqY)

This whole garbage about it having to be eliminated so they can be "competitive" is such a disgrace. There are plenty of things they can do to compete, yet we are forced to make it so easy on them.

With regards to Goldwater, I didn't know that but it is not a surprise because it was actually a good deal for the cable companies. It was a barter deal rather than making them pay huge sums for using public lands. See, he was a real conservative, unlike the punks who think we have to give all these gifts to big business so they can "compete".

I personally love the idea of true public access TV. I never considered Ch20 as 'public access.'

But, with things like YouTube out there I think the public access TV ship has sailed. Why put all that time and effort into a studio,, staffing etc. When any 8-year old with a $10 web cam can publish to YouTube and reach far more people 24-hours a day and even get paid with in-video advertising.

I personally love the idea of true public access TV. I never considered Ch20 as 'public access.'

But, with things like YouTube out there I think the public access TV ship has sailed. Why put all that time and effort into a studio,, staffing etc. When any 8-year old with a $10 web cam can publish to YouTube and reach far more people 24-hours a day and even get paid with in-video advertising.

Good point. The only difference is that with public access they had to air your content with no questions asked. It could be racist, sexist and very unPC and still it had to be aired. Barry Goldwater made sure of that, but maybe things have changed. But YouTube does censor where the appeal of public access was no censorship at all.

The only difference is that with public access they had to air your content with no questions asked. It could be racist, sexist and very unPC and still it had to be aired.

Are you sure about that? I found some references online to cities being able to "legally block programs that are obscene or promote violence."

Even without YouTube, an individual can now readily publish their own site with whatever content they like. If that wasn't appeal enough, the fact you can make pretty good money off a popular and controversial site makes the thought of public access TV sorta 'yesterday's news.'

I personally love the idea of true public access TV. I never considered Ch20 as 'public access.'

But, with things like YouTube out there I think the public access TV ship has sailed. Why put all that time and effort into a studio,, staffing etc. When any 8-year old with a $10 web cam can publish to YouTube and reach far more people 24-hours a day and even get paid with in-video advertising.

lots of people still don't have internet access nor the desire to get on and watch youtube. Like that moron Michael Powell said "theres a mercedes divide" (re internet access and it being expensive)....cable is fairly inexpensive (basic) and less fortunate or lazy or whatever you want to call them people need stuff like this....

While many people still do not have Internet access in their homes, the numbers that do are growing rapidly. Internet access though is 'available' to anyone in a city/town with a library. Many people don't have cable TV either. I would give up my cable TV before giving up my Internet. I think it would be hard to argue for public access TV and the costs associated with it. Again, I like it, I just don't think it is the 'best' option these days.

Since they've done away with it, they need to do something else to compensate. Things like public access existed as a trade out for them laying cable on public lands...