Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Applications of AT&T and DIRECTV for ) MB Docket No. 14-90 Consent to Assign and Transfer Control of ) FCC Licenses and Authorizations ) ) )

JOINT PETITION TO DENY OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA, THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS DEMOCRACY, AND COMMON CAUSE

Michael S. Wassenaar James N. Horwood ACM Public Policy Advocate Tillman L. Lay Alliance for Community Media Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 4248 Park Glen Road 1875 Eye Street, NW Minneapolis, MN 55416 Suite 700 (612) 298-3805 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 879-4000 Todd O’Boyle Program Director Media and Democracy Program Common Cause 1133 19th Street, NW 9th Floor Washington, DC 20036

September 16, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 1 II. THE AT&T/ DIRECTV TRANSACTION WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST...... 4 A. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, AT&T and DIRECTV are clearly MVPD competitors, and the transaction would substantially lessen competition...... 5 B. AT&T/DIRECTV’s proffered public benefits are illusory and prove too much...... 8 1. “Enhanced” video and broadband services...... 8 2. Reduced programming costs and other cost savings...... 10 3. The Application’s other alleged public benefits...... 12 III. THE AT&T/DIRECTV TRANSACTION WOULD DISSERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY HARMING PEG AND LOCALISM...... 13 A. PEG programming is essential to preserving localism, diversity and an informed electorate...... 14 B. The AT&T/DIRECTV transaction would inflict substantial and incurable harm on PEG, localism and the public interest ...... 18 1. AT&T’s channel 99 “PEG Product” suppresses PEG accessibility and viewership and violates the Cable Act and FCC rules...... 19 2. The transaction would undermine localism...... 21 a. The transaction would lead to less localism in MVPD programming content...... 21 b. The transaction would promote migration to DBS and away from PEG obligations, thereby undermining localism...... 24 IV. CONCLUSION ...... 26

The Alliance for Communications Democracy: Aggregate Data on Cable Viewership ...... Appendix 1 Results of ACM Fall 2012 Survey of Over 200 PEG Centers’ Election Coverage and Programming ...... Appendix 2 Examples of PEG Election-Related Programming ...... Appendix 3 Analysis of Recent PEG Access Center Closures, Funding Cutbacks and Related Threats...... Appendix 4 Declaration of Michael S. Wassenaar ...... Appendix 5 i JOINT PETITION TO DENY OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA, THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS DEMOCRACY, AND COMMON CAUSE

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The Alliance for Community Media (“ACM”), the Alliance for Communications

Democracy (“ACD”), and Common Cause submit this petition to deny the application of AT&T and DIRECTV to transfer control of DIRECTV’s FCC and other authorizations to AT&T

(“Application”). ACM is a national nonprofit membership organization representing over 3,000 public, educational and governmental (“PEG”) access organizations and community media centers, and PEG programmers throughout the nation. Those PEG organizations and centers include more than 1.2 million volunteers and 250,000 community groups that provide PEG access television programming in local communities across the United States.

ACD is a national membership organization of nonprofit PEG organizations that supports efforts to protect the rights of the public to communicate via cable television, and promotes the availability of the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the public.1

The organizations represented by ACD have helped thousands of members of the public, educational institutions, and local governments make use of PEG channels that have been established in their communities pursuant to franchise agreements and federal law. 47 U.S.C. §

531.

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest, and accountable government that

1 ACD’s members are: Access Humboldt, Eureka, California; Capital Community TV, Salem, Oregon; Chicago Access Network Television, Chicago, Illinois; CreaTV, San Jose, California; Manhattan Neighborhood Network, New York City, New York; MetroEast Community Media, Gresham, Oregon; and Alliance for Community Media Western Region. works for the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard. Its

400,000 members are organized in 35 state chapters.

The Public Notice sought comments from all interested persons to assist the Commission in its independent review of the proposed transfer of control of FCC licenses and other authorizations which, if effectuated, would result in the sale of all of the assets of DIRECTV and its subsidiaries and related entities to a subsidiary of AT&T. 2 For the reasons set forth below, consent to the proposed transfers and other authorizations should be denied.

First, the supposed public interest benefits asserted by AT&T and DIRECTV are illusory.

The transaction would eliminate a competitor from the multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) market throughout AT&T’s 22-state incumbent local exchange carrier

(“ILEC”) region. Moreover, the Application’s proffered justifications for the transaction prove too much: the supposed minimum scale efficiencies that the transaction seeks to achieve merely prove that the MVPD market is inherently not competitively structured and that approval of this transaction would thwart localism.

Second, the transaction would have a substantial adverse effect on the public interest by undermining localism, which is served by PEG access programming on cable television systems, including the U-Verse video service offering on AT&T’s cable systems. AT&T has resisted any meaningful accommodation of PEG access on its U-Verse platform. The combination of AT&T with DIRECTV, which does not provide for any PEG programming on its platform, would lead to a localism race-to-the-bottom and threaten the continued availability and viability of all local independent programming and content. That risk is particularly acute for PEG, the one area in

2 See Commission Seeks Comment on Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV to Transfer Control of FCC Licensees and other Authorizations, Public Notice, MB Docket No. 14-90, DA 14-1129 (rel. Aug. 17, 2014).

2 the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (“Cable Act”) with a specific and enduring mission to encourage public participation and to foster diversity and localism.

The legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act recognizes the importance of providing for local needs in cable franchising:

The ability of a local government entity to require particular cable [PEG] facilities (and to enforce requirements in the franchise to provide those [PEG] facilities) is essential if cable systems are to be tailored to the needs of each community [and the legislation] explicitly grants this power to the franchising authority. 3

ACM and ACD filed joint Comments on August 25, 2014, in MB Docket No. 14-57,

Applications of Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable Inc., Charter Communications, Inc. and SpinCo to Assign and Transfer Control of FCC Licenses and Other Authorizations, in which they took the position that if the Commission were to find that the transactions would otherwise be in the public interest, the FCC should find that (a) the PEG conditions proposed in those comments are essential to ensuring that those transactions are in the public interest; (b) the

PEG conditions offered by Comcast are inadequate; and (c) the conditions proposed in the

ACM/ACD comments should be required in any consent given by the FCC. In submitting comments in the Comcast proceeding, ACM and ACD did not take a position that the

Commission should approve those transactions. Rather, ACM and ACD recognized that other parties would be taking positions opposing the merger or proposing additional conditions beyond those proposed by ACM and ACD.

In contrast to the Comcast proceeding, where Comcast voluntarily offered conditions to address PEG access (albeit in a meager and wholly inadequate way), AT&T does not even acknowledge or otherwise recognize the existence, let alone importance, of PEG. Moreover, the

3 H.R. Rep. No. 934, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 26, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4663.

3 manner in which AT&T has deployed, and continues to deploy, its U-Verse video service, denies any meaningful accommodation of PEG access, and ACD and ACM have a long-pending petition before the FCC challenging AT&T’s treatment of PEG channels.4 The matters of particular concern to ACM, ACD and Common Cause are: (1) having PEG channels available on all of the AT&T (both existing and on DIRECTV) MVPD platforms in the same format as local broadcast channels are carried; (2) having PEG channels carried in proximity to commercial channels providing similar programming so they are easily located and accessed by subscribers without having to resort to a confusing series of dropdown menus; (3) providing PEG channels with the same functions, functionality and signal quality as provided to local broadcasters’ primary channels; (4) having PEG programming be easily accessed and non-discriminatively available on all AT&T/DIRECTV platforms; and (5) providing PEG channels with the ability to be delivered on HD tiers or platforms. Unless these concerns can and will be addressed in a satisfactory manner by AT&T, the Application should be denied.

II. THE AT&T/ DIRECTV TRANSACTION WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

The Commission cannot grant the Application unless it finds that AT&T’s acquisition of

DIRECTV would serve the public interest. 47 U.S.C. §310(d). Thus, to justify the transaction,

AT&T and DIRECTV must show not merely that it will not result in harms, but that it will provide affirmative new benefits to the public.

The Application falls far short on both counts. In Part III below, we show that the transaction, if approved, would cause considerable harms to the public interest—specifically, it would undermine PEG and the vital interests of localism and participatory democracy that

4 Petition for Declaratory Ruling of Alliance for Community Media et al., CSR-8126, MB Docket No. 09-13 (“ACM PEG Petition”) (filed Jan. 30, 2009).

4 Congress has determined is of great importance and that PEG serves.5 Here, we show that the supposed benefits that AT&T and DIRECTV claim the transaction would yield are illusory. In fact, the transaction would lessen MVPD competition and potential competition throughout

AT&T’s 22-state ILEC footprint and serve only to further consolidate, and de-localize, the already-concentrated MVPD and broadband markets. At best, the transaction would serve only the private, profit-maximizing interests of AT&T and DIRECTV, but not the public interest.

A. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, AT&T and DIRECTV are clearly MVPD competitors, and the transaction would substantially lessen competition.

The Application seeks to belittle AT&T’s U-verse video service, claiming that it has few standalone video customers and that U-verse video service “is uneconomic and not fully competitive with cable providers.”6 The reason the Application takes this course is obvious:

AT&T’s U-verse video service offering competes directly with DIRECTV’s DBS service throughout AT&T’s U-verse footprint.

The Application attempts to sidestep this obvious problem by diverting attention away from MVPD competition and asserting that the “combined AT&T and DIRECTV will be able to offer new and better [video and broadband] service bundles, creating a stronger competitor to the

[traditional incumbent] cable [operator] bundle.”7

But this “bundle” diversion is undermined by the data that the Application provides.

AT&T concedes (id. at 3) that it plans “to cover approximately 33 million customer locations” in its ILEC footprint with FTTN/FTTP technologies that will enable it to provide U-verse video service to those locations. By any reasonable measure, 33 million households, all within the

5 See note 3 supra. 6 E.g., Description of Transaction, Public Interest Showing, and Related Demonstrations (“Public Interest Statement”), at 1-2, available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521303307. The Public Interest Statement was filed with the Application. 7 Id. at 4.

5 huge 22-state swath of AT&T’s ILEC territory, represent a substantial MVPD footprint. If the transaction were to go forward, all existing MVPD competition between AT&T and DIRECTV would be lost throughout this 33-million household footprint, and all potential competition between them would be lost throughout AT&T’s 22-state ILEC footprint.

That AT&T currently may have 5.7 million U-verse video subscribers (id. at 2) does not alter the fact that its U-verse system will reach 33 million households. AT&T’s current 5.7 million U-verse video subscriber figure may represent lower penetration than AT&T would like, but that is itself a product of competition. The proper, and pro-competitive, solution to AT&T’s disappointing U-verse video penetration problem is to improve the price or quality of its U-verse video and bundled offerings. Acquiring one of its primary competitors, DIRECTV, in contrast, would serve only to decrease MVPD competition throughout AT&T’s planned 33 million U- verse footprint and remove from the competitive market 33 million households-worth of MVPD capacity from the market.

AT&T tries to obfuscate this clear anticompetitive impact by claiming that there are separate market “segments” for video-broadband bundles and standalone MVPD service (id. at

7), but its claim wilts under scrutiny, for several reasons. As an initial matter, there clearly is a market for standalone video service, because that is what DIRECTV and other DBS providers provide, and they have lots of subscribers. Indeed, DIRECTV is the nation’s second largest

MVPD.8

More to the point, AT&T overlooks the obvious fact that consumers can and do choose among different options to meet their video service and broadband service needs. Currently, in

AT&T U-verse territory, customers have the choice of obtaining bundled video/broadband services from AT&T or the local incumbent cable operator, or obtaining those services

8 DIRECTV Annual Report 2013, Part I, Item 1.

6 separately, purchasing broadband from AT&T or the cable operator while purchasing video services from the other, or from DIRECTV, or from another DBS provider.

The AT&T/DIRECTV transaction would curtail several of those choices, largely eliminating consumers’ ability to mix and match video and broadband services from different, unaffiliated providers, each of which, absent the transaction, would have a far greater incentive to offer standalone broadband service and standalone video service at competitive and attractive prices.

Further, AT&T and DIRECTV’s argument that consumers prefer bundles does not lead to the conclusion they draw. While 97% of AT&T U-verse customers subscribe to bundles,

AT&T notes that 78% of the basic cable subscribers of the six largest incumbent cable operators do as well. Id. at 2. Thus, in terms of consumer bundling preferences, AT&T’s bundled U-verse service is not nearly as distinguishable from traditional cable operators’ bundled service as

AT&T suggests.

AT&T overlooks the obvious implication of this fact: if the transaction were not approved, AT&T would be forced by incumbent cable operator competition and by consumers’ bundling preferences to extend U-verse video service throughout its planned 33 million household U-verse footprint, and perhaps beyond to its entire 22-state ILEC footprint, and to market that video service aggressively. And as one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, AT&T no doubt possesses the resources and expertise to do that. Permitting the transaction to go forward, in contrast, would remove AT&T’s incentive to expand and aggressively market its U-verse video service within its ILEC footprint. Instead, video customers throughout AT&T’s ILEC region would see the elimination of one of their current competitive MVPD alternatives. The transaction would likewise eliminate any incentive

7 DIRECTV might otherwise have, for example, to participate in upcoming FCC spectrum auctions, or to team with smaller wireless providers, to provide its own bundled DBS/wireless broadband service.

Put a little differently, it is not the public interest to eliminate the incentive of a huge and wealthy competitor like AT&T to invest and grow internally by expanding its own U-verse video/broadband footprint within its ILEC footprint rather than growing by buying a competitor.

Nor is it in the public interest to eliminate the incentive of DIRECTV, the nation’s largest DBS provider and second-largest MVPD, to invest in its own video/broadband solutions. Yet, by allowing AT&T and DIRECTV to grow by merging with an existing competitor, rather than allowing competitive pressures to force each to invest and expand internally, that is exactly what the transaction would do.

B. AT&T/DIRECTV’s proffered public benefits are illusory and prove too much.

The Application proffers several alleged public benefits that would flow from the transaction. But none stands up to reasoned analysis.

1. “Enhanced” video and broadband services.

The Application claims that the AT&T/DIRECTV combination will enable AT&T to offer its customers DIRECTV’s “broad range of video programming packages” and meet their desires for bundled video and broadband services. Id. at 29-33. It also asserts that the combination will enable the two companies to marry each of their innovative attributes to “to bring enhanced video options to consumers across all screens—TVs, PCs, smartphones and tablets—and develop the potential of OTT [over-the-top] and future innovation in mobile video products and services.” Id. at 46-49.

8 But the Application never really explains why AT&T, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world,9 and DIRECTV, the nation’s largest DBS provider and, with 20 million subscribers, already the second largest MVPD,10 are somehow incapable of investing in and providing many, if not most, of these enhancements and innovations unless they merge. To be sure, DIRECTV has contractual rights to certain highly-valued video programming (primarily the NFL Sunday Ticket package) that AT&T does not,11 and thus, it is easy to see how acquiring the rights to more programming might benefit AT&T’s and its shareholders’ private profit-maximizing interests. But it is hard to see the public interest that is served. All video subscribers already have access to that programming from DIRECTV if they wish; the only difference the merger would make is that all video subscribers in AT&T’s U-verse footprint would lose an independent MVPD alternative from which they might otherwise choose to obtain MVPD service.

As for the other supposed “enhancement” and “innovation” benefits, especially those related to broadband and OTT, the genuine public interest benefits, when scrubbed of the

Application’s rhetoric, are difficult to discern.

Within AT&T’s ILEC footprint, its acquisition of DIRECTV would reduce, if not eliminate, its incentive to expand its U-verse bundled video/broadband footprint, because the acquisition would enable AT&T to “buy” video market share, and MVPD market capacity, from

DIRECTV rather than gaining it through investment in and expanding its U-verse video/broadband footprint throughout its ILEC footprint. That, in turn, would mean that AT&T

9 AT&T, Prospective Suppliers, Overview, available at www.attsuppliers.com/prospective.asp. 10 See note 8 supra. 11 We note that DIRECTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket contract appears to be a significant part of the value to AT&T of the transaction, as the agreement allows AT&T to back out of the transaction if DIRECTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket contract is not renewed on substantially the same terms. AT&T Inc., Current Report (Form 8-K), Item 1.01 (May 18, 2014).

9 has less incentive to expand its landline broadband capacity throughout its ILEC footprint—a result that would hardly serve the public interest.

Outside of AT&T’s ILEC footprint, the alleged public interest benefits are equally difficult to fathom. AT&T has no, and plans no, end-user landline broadband facilities outside of its ILEC footprint, so the merger would result in no new bundled landline video/broadband competition in that area. The only potential benefit would be the combining of DIRECTV’s existing video service business outside of AT&T’s ILEC footprint with AT&T’s existing wireless service in that area. But wireless broadband is at best only an imperfect substitute for landline broadband,12 and in any event, AT&T overlooks the clear public interest downside to the wireless broadband market of permitting the marriage of AT&T’s wireless broadband service with DIRECTV’s exclusive programming content: It would merely strengthen AT&T’s already- dominant wireless market position, thereby further entrenching the existing near-duopoly of

Verizon and AT&T in the wireless market, to the detriment of competition in that already-concentrated market.

2. Reduced programming costs and other cost savings.

The Public Interest Statement claims that one of the primary benefits of the transaction would be to lower AT&T’s programming content costs, “by at least 20 percent.” Id. at 36. This would occur as a result of combining AT&T’s existing U-verse video subscriber base with

DIRECTV’s larger video subscriber base. Id. at 35.

According to AT&T, its U-verse video platform suffers from a “lack of scale” that deprives it of the ability to obtain programming at costs comparable to its incumbent cable

12 One need look no further than AT&T’s own arguments about the success of traditional cable operators’ broadband/video bundles for proof of that. Public Interest Statement at 4.

10 operator and DBS competitors.13 The transaction would result in a combined AT&T U-verse and DIRECTV video subscriber base of “about 26 million video customers in the United

States.”14 That is larger than Comcast’s current 22 million subscriber base and only a little smaller than Comcast’s projected 30 million subscriber base if the Comcast/Time Warner

Cable/Charter transactions are allowed to go forward.15

The problem with AT&T’s “lack of scale” argument is that it proves far too much.

AT&T is essentially claiming that, to obtain necessary programming cost efficiencies, the minimum required scale is well in excess of 20 million subscribers. But to the extent that is true,

AT&T is admitting that the MVPD market is not, and can never be, truly competitively structured. That, in turn, is an argument that the MVPD market needs more regulation, not further consolidation as this transaction would cause.

In fact, this “economies of scale” issue would merely exacerbate the loss of MVPD competition resulting from the transaction noted above in Part II (A). As Chairman Wheeler recently noted,

I know that achieving scale is good economics, and that there is a natural economic incentive to accrue ever-expanding scale. We will continue to be skeptical of efforts to achieve scale through consolidation of major players.16

Moreover, AT&T’s related claims that, due to its small U-verse video subscriber base, its

U-verse video service is “uneconomic and not fully competitive with cable providers” (Public

Interest Statement at 1) and that it does not “focus[] its U-verse video marketing efforts” “on standalone video” (id. at 7), ring hollow. These pleas of inadequacy are, after all, coming from

13 Id. at 3. See also Stankey Decl. ¶ 14-15. 14 Stankey Decl. ¶ 17. 15 Id. ¶ 13. 16 Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, 2014 CITA Show, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 9, 2014, at 2, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0909/DOC-3219271A1.pdf.

11 one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies ― a company significantly larger than any of its incumbent cable operator and DBS competitors. By its own admission, AT&T’s U- verse footprint will reach almost “one-quarter of U.S. households.” Id. at 3 and 7. The last thing that would serve the public interest would be to allow a giant like AT&T to buy its way, through further industry consolidation, to the MVPD service scale it wishes, rather than allowing the competitive pressures of existing cable operators within AT&T’s ILEC footprint to force AT&T to use its considerable resources to do the hard work of increasing overall market broadband and

MVPD capacity, and thus competition, in its ILEC footprint through internal investment and expansion rather than consolidation.

3. The Application’s other alleged public benefits.

The Application alleges other supposed public benefits, but they are either inconsistent with other claimed benefits, illusory, or both. AT&T claims, for instance, that as a result of the transaction’s “content cost savings and other synergies,” AT&T will be able to expand its wireless and wireline broadband network (id. at 41) and also to expand broadband to “13 million largely underserved, rural customer locations.” Id. at 44. But AT&T elsewhere claims that the supposedly competitive MVPD market will “ensure that [AT&T] uses these reduced marginal costs [accruing from programming cost and other savings]” to “pass through some or all of the marginal cost reductions” to subscribers.17

AT&T cannot have it both ways. It cannot be that MVPD customers will enjoy any significant part of the alleged program content cost savings while, at the same time, AT&T is promising that those same savings will also be used to fund expansion of its broadband network into rural and other areas. In fact, if the MVPD market truly were competitive, it would compel

17 Id. at 33-34 and n.97 (quoting Katz Decl. ¶ 118).

12 AT&T to pass on all, or almost all, of the programming cost savings to MVPD consumers in the form of lower prices. That AT&T believes it can instead use those savings for other purposes proves that the MVPD market is not truly competitive, and that this transaction would only make it even less so.

Furthermore, if AT&T were really interested in expanding broadband services more widely, spending $67 billion in cash, equity and acquired debt to buy DIRECTV is perhaps the least efficient way imaginable to do so. According to Free Press, for $67 billion, “AT&T could pass 71 million new homes with gigabit fiber, and connect 21 million new subscribers (assuming an industry-average 30 percent take-rate).”18

Accordingly, the proposed transaction would serve only the private profit-maximizing interests of AT&T, DIRECTV and their shareholders, not the public interest.

III. THE AT&T/DIRECTV TRANSACTION WOULD DISSERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY HARMING PEG AND LOCALISM.

As shown above, the supposed public benefits that AT&T and DIRECTV claim would flow from the transaction are illusory, and the transaction would impede, rather than promote,

MVPD competition and broadband deployment. But the transaction not only would not advance the public interest; it would do substantial harm to the public interest.

These harms would flow from the substantial diminution in PEG channel availability, accessibility, functionality and support that the transaction would cause. The resulting diminution of PEG would, in turn, seriously undermine localism. It would also harm the local democratic process by denying viewers access to vital and unique PEG coverage of the electoral process. Simply put, the AT&T/DIRECTV transaction would further nationalize, and de-

18 S. Derek Turner, “Why the AT&T-DirecTV Deal Is the Dumbest, Most Wasteful Deal Ever (at Least Since Comcast-Time Warner Cable),” May 19, 2014, available at http://.freepress.net/blog/2014/05/19/why-the-att- directive-deal-dumbest-most-wasteful-deal-ever.

13 localize, the video programming library available to viewers, and that would strike at the very heart of localism.

In Part III (A) below, we describe the unique local benefits of PEG. In Part III (B), we point out how the transaction would harm PEG, localism and local participatory democracy.

A. PEG programming is essential to preserving localism, diversity and an informed electorate.

PEG access advances Congress’ 1984 Cable Act goal of providing a wide diversity of information and services by responding to the unique needs and interests of each local community. The role of PEG access in developing technological and media literacy has never been more important than today. PEG centers provide constructive outlets for community youth to learn media skills. Seniors actively create programming on a range of issues. PEG channels provide an outlet for small, and otherwise unserved or underserved segments of a community

(such as foreign language speakers) to produce and watch programming responsive to their unique needs and interests. PEG channels give nonprofit organizations an outlet to reach clients in need of assistance.

PEG channels also furnish a platform for civic debate about local political issues. And during local elections, PEG channels provide opportunities for candidates to address the public directly and fully, without being limited to a 30-second sound bite. Thus, PEG channels are a vital platform for causes and organizations that would otherwise not be part of public discourse.

Viewpoint diversity is a long-established public interest goal of the Commission.

Thousands of hours of new, original programming appear on PEG channels every day throughout the country, bringing uniquely local information into the home that would not otherwise be seen. PEG channels welcome community members, politicians, preachers, experts,

14 educators, and artists. PEG participants are not screened or selected by corporate management or advertising interests; they participate because it is their community, and PEG channels are their channels, and because they have something to say.

The role of PEG channels is particularly important at a time when less than 0.5% of programming on commercial television media is devoted to local public affairs. The commitment of PEG programmers to promoting social services, election information, arts and civic events, public safety, and other issues close to home, demonstrates what is possible when local individuals and community groups, rather than just larger commercial media outlets, are given the opportunity to participate in the television medium. The democratic values that form the foundation of the PEG access mission merit preservation by government, industry, and individuals alike.

The quantity of uniquely local original programming that PEG provides to communities is substantial. A sampling performed by ACM in 2010 reveals that each year, an average PEG access center ran 1,867 hours of first-run local programming on its PEG channel(s) per year.

That translates into an average of 35 hours of first-run local programming per week ― an impressive number that clearly reflects the robust amount of community involvement and the value that communities place on PEG. Whether it is an urban area, suburb or small town, PEG channels are focused 100% on the local communities they serve, cablecasting local events, town hall and council meetings, local election coverage, and school activities that rarely receive full coverage on local broadcast or other commercial media. Because of the variables in the number of PEG channels operated in any specific jurisdiction, it is difficult to extrapolate nationwide, but

15 ACM has estimated that PEG access channels generate over 2.5 million hours of original local programming per year.19

Moreover, viewers value PEG programming highly. Attached hereto as Appendix 1 is a copy of Attachment A to ACD’s comments in the Future of Media proceeding, GN Docket No.

10-25 (filed April 23, 2010). That document sets forth the results of a telephone survey concerning PEG viewership and demographics, and the value that subscribers attach to PEG programming. The survey’s major findings were: (1) 74% of cable subscribers say PEG programming is “very or somewhat important” to them; (2) 59% of cable subscribers say that

$1.00 or more per month per subscriber should be devoted to PEG programming; (3) PEG channel number locations matter, because channel surfing decreases dramatically as the channel number increases, especially for channels above 100; and (4) older and lower income subscribers are less likely to access the Internet and therefore rely more heavily on cable television channels for information.

Due to their uniquely local nature, PEG channels are an irreplaceable source of local election coverage. Indeed, PEG content often serves as the only source of local community news and information, so limiting its reach harms the local electorate. Attached hereto as Appendix 2 are the results of ACM’s fall 2012, survey of over 200 of its member PEG centers’ 2012 election coverage and programming. The survey was conducted to assess the (i) amount of 2012 election programming produced or carried by PEG centers; (ii) the type of election programming aired; and (iii) the involvement of community partners in developing local PEG election programming.

Participating PEG centers represent a mix of public, educational and governmental non-

19 Comments of ACM, Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age, GN Docket No. 10-25, at 15-17 (filed May 21, 2010).

16 commercial cable channels from around the country, including urban and rural centers. Key findings include:

x 85% of PEG centers produced and/or aired 2012 election programming;

x 52% of responding PEG centers aired ten or more hours of 2012 election

coverage;

x Of the elections covered, 95% of PEG centers carried local election programming,

74% provided state election programming, and 33% aired national election

programming;

x The vast majority or responding PEG centers relied on three programming

formats for election coverage: candidates debates, candidate interviews and town

hall/candidate forums;

x More than 75% of PEG centers collaborated with other organizations to offer

election programming, with the League of Women Voters, the local Chamber of

Commerce, local community colleges and universities most often cited as a key

partner.

In addition to cable television programs, many local PEG centers also offered supplemental election information on their websites and social media platforms.20

More recent examples of PEG political and election coverage include:

x In 2013, CAN-TV in Chicago cablecasted 150 programs introducing viewers to

116 candidates for the March City primary election and the Illinois 2d

Congressional District’s special election, and for the March 2014 City primary

20 See Alliance for Community Media Survey Results Demonstrate Impact of Community Media Centers, Jan. 10, 2013, available at http://www.alliancecommunitymedia.org/latest-news/alliance-for-community-media-survey- results-domonstrate-impact-of-community-media-centers.

17 election, CAN-TV cablecast 137 programs introducing 96 candidates to

viewers.21

x In the past year, LBCAP/PADNET of Long Beach, California, has cablecast 15

programs covering mayoral and city council candidates and elections.22

x In 2013-2014, Access Framingham (Massachusetts) has cablecast well over 50

programs concerning the Framingham Selectmen, Planning Board, School

Committee, Massachusetts Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State representative

races, and county government races, among others.23

In sum, PEG channels are a critical and irreplaceable source of truly local programming, and thus any harm to them arising from the transaction would be inimical to localism and local democratic participation, and therefore to the public interest.

B. The AT&T/DIRECTV transaction would inflict substantial and incurable harm on PEG, localism and the public interest.

Despite the long and well documented history of PEG channels providing local news, election, educational, cultural, civic, health, and religious programming to millions of Americans across the U.S., neither AT&T nor DIRECTV mentions the benefits of preserving and protecting

PEG channels in their Public Interest Statement filed with the Application. This is a glaring omission, particularly as the purported benefits of the transaction appear to be related to cost savings and other supposed scale economies attributable to the increased size and geographic consolidation AT&T and DIRECTV as a result of the transaction.

21 See Appendix 3 hereto. 22 See id. 23 See id.

18 The transaction poses a direct threat to PEG and localism in at least two ways. First, it would improperly reward AT&T’s longstanding hostility toward PEG, as evidenced by its

“Channel 99 PEG product.” Second, it would undermine localism by further “nationalizing,” and de-localizing, MVPD service offerings, and it would permit AT&T to abandon PEG and localism by migrating its video service customers over time to DIRECTV’s DBS service, thereby allowing AT&T to escape local PEG obligations (as well as local franchise and PEG fee obligations) altogether.

1. AT&T’s channel 99 “PEG Product” suppresses PEG accessibility and viewership and violates the Cable Act and FCC rules.

More than five years ago, in early 2009, ACM and ACD, along with several other PEG centers, national and regional organizations, and local governments, filed a petition with the

Commission seeking a declaratory ruling that the manner in which AT&T’s U-verse video service offering treats PEG (AT&T’s so-called channel 99 “PEG product”) violates the Cable

Act and applicable Commission rules.24 That petition remains pending.

AT&T’s “PEG product” creates unique barriers to subscribers’ ability to access and view

PEG programming from their own local community. As pointed out in the ACM PEG Petition,25

AT&T treats PEG channels on its U-verse system very differently from non-PEG channels.

Unlike the linear channels on AT&T’s system, which a subscriber can reach simply by remembering and inputting the correct channel number, AT&T’s PEG product requires a subscriber to select “channel 99,” wait for the application to launch, and then navigate a series of on-screen menus and sub-menus just to reach a particular PEG programming channel in their local jurisdiction. The more PEG channels in a DMA, and the more PEG channels in each local

24 See ACM PEG Petition. 25 Id. at 10-17.

19 jurisdiction, the more sub-menus the subscriber must navigate through to reach his or her own preferred local community PEG programming on AT&T’s PEG product.

In addition to rendering PEG channels far more difficult for the viewer to find and access than other programming channels on U-verse, AT&T’s “PEG product” also deprives PEG viewers of important functionality enjoyed by virtually all other U-verse video channels. PEG programming on U-verse lacks “last channel” functionality, and AT&T U-verse’s DVR functionality does not apply to PEG programming, thereby depriving viewers of the ability to time-shift PEG programming and to channel surf between PEG and non-PEG channels.26 These defects impose a crippling handicap on PEG channel viewership, as video surveys indicate what common sense should tell you: a major factor in channel viewership on an MVPD system is subscribers’ ability to find a channel and to record the channel’s programs to view at their convenience.27

The last thing the Commission should be doing is rewarding AT&T’s seemingly institutional aversion to democracy-enabling PEG programming by granting the Application. At a minimum, the Commission should act on the ACM PEG Petition before taking action on the

Application. AT&T is certainly not entitled to have the Application granted until or unless the

Cable Act and FCC rule violation alleged against it in the ACM PEG Petition are resolved and cured.

26 Id. at 15-17. 27 See, for example, Digitalsmiths “Q21 2014 Video Trends Report,” at 18, where the Tivo subsidiary found that 44% of all pay television viewers use program specific searches to find programs they want to view. The same survey of over 3000 subscribers reports that only 7.5% of viewers never use a DVR, while significant numbers of viewers use the device to watch content. The report indicates over 40% of all viewers use the DVR to view short amounts of content daily, and another 40% watch between one and three hours of content each day via DVR (at 6), http://www.digitalsmiths.com/downloads/Digitalsmiths_Q1_2014_Video_Discovery_Trends_Report.pdf. A recent Nielsen report shows that 30% of people view by time shifting. Nielsen, “More of What We Want, Cross Platform Report Q1 2014,” June 2014, at 4. The Nielsen analysis reports that 29% of all television viewers watch time- shifted programs, comprising on average a half-hour of content per week for all viewers.

20 2. The transaction would undermine localism.

a. The transaction would lead to less localism in MVPD programming content.

Over the past 20 years, MVPD ownership has become increasingly concentrated within fewer and fewer providers. Along with the horizontal concentration of ownership of cable systems and other MVPDs, there also has been increased vertical integration between MVPDs and program content suppliers. AT&T’s acquisition of DIRECTV would contribute to this increased concentration. As the Application states (Stankey Decl. ¶ 18), the transaction would enable AT&T to acquire DIRECTV’s programming rights, including the NFL Sunday Ticket package.

This greater MVPD horizontal and vertical integration has translated into increasingly greater difficulty in preserving the localism found important by Congress when the Cable Act was enacted in 1984. Moreover, this increasing concentration has occurred as cable and telecommunication companies—especially AT&T—have pushed for state legislation that has eliminated local franchising authority in 21 states and removed the ability for local input into franchising. Where there still is local franchising, there are increased market incentives for cable companies not to support localism by refusing to agree to the level of local support for PEG access needed for PEG to fulfill local community cable-related needs and interests.

AT&T has long fought the existence of, or set up significant barriers to, the operation of

PEG channels in many communities. After acquiring DIRECTV, AT&T will own rights to

DIRECTV’s largely national programming contracts and thus would have a new, additional incentive to favor its newly-acquired DIRECTV programming package content, further exacerbating the threat to the non-commercial and uniquely community-oriented programming provided by PEG channels. This is particularly so because of the current capacity limits and the

21 growing capacity demands placed on AT&T’s video/broadband network by newly-carried national programming networks and the incentives those developments create. To the extent that the post-merger AT&T can further limit the capacity now designated for PEG use (by providing inferior, or more highly-compressed channels for PEG use, or by underfunding PEG so that it is no longer viable), it would gain capacity that it can use for its newly-acquired DIRECTV programming contract content.

In addition, the post-transaction AT&T would have incentives to use its gatekeeper control over local broadband and cable distribution systems to create a video portal service that would allow a user to select AT&T/DIRECTV-preferred video programming that can be accessed from either a traditional television set, a computer, or a mobile device. The post- transaction AT&T would likely have an increased incentive to provide preferred transmission rights to DIRECTV content via this portal in a number of ways that could adversely affect subscriber access to non-affiliated or disfavored programming. It could, for example, exclude its preferred programming from data limits and restrictions, thereby damaging the viability of competing programming offerings.

The threat to PEG and localism is exacerbated by state video franchising laws – almost all enacted at the behest of AT&T – that establish uniform, statutorily specified statewide PEG requirements. None of the state franchising laws was enacted in a world where it was envisioned that cable/MVPD industry concentration, and consequent vertical integration, would yield such common control over cable systems, DBS providers, national and regional cable programming content, and (in the case of Comcast-NBC) a nationwide network of local broadcast stations. To the contrary, the state video franchising laws assumed – and were based on AT&T’s assurances to state legislatures that – the uniform statewide franchise requirements they imposed would

22 apply in a context where AT&T would be providing competing cable service, not abandoning landline cable service for DBS.

The wrecking ball that AT&T-backed state video franchising laws has swung through

PEG centers is massive. An analysis of recent PEG access center closures, funding cutbacks and related threats prepared for ACD in 2011 shows the extent to which funding support for PEG centers and services from cable companies and local governments has been reduced since 2005, and the reasons for these cutbacks.28 The key findings included the following:

x PEG access centers in at least 100 communities across the United States have

been closed since 2005 (the year that the first AT&T-sponsored state video

franchising law, in Texas, was enacted). A disproportionate number of these

centers (93) exclusively served the public through public access channels.

x Almost half of the survey respondents providing financial information

suffered an average funding drop of 40% during that time period.

x Of the 100 survey respondents reporting in-kind support from their cable

operators, 20% indicated in-kind materials and services had been cut back or

eliminated.

Having justified its promotion of state video franchising laws with the promise that it would bring landline, cable-based competition to incumbent cable operators, AT&T through this transaction now apparently seeks to renege on that promise by fleeing to DIRECTV’s DBS service. The Commission should not reward that bait-and-switch.29

28 Appendix 4 hereto. 29 AT&T has engaged in such practices before. Ten years ago, then-FCC Chairman Powell, in explaining his decision in the Triennial Review Order, pointed to SBC’s (now AT&T) commitment “to serve 300,000 households with a FTTH network while BellSouth [now also AT&T] has deployed a deep fiber network to approximately 1 million homes.” See Separate Statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell, Petition for Forbearance of the Verizon

23 b. The transaction would promote migration to DBS and away from PEG obligations, thereby undermining localism.

The transaction also poses an additional, and unique, threat to PEG and thus to localism.

AT&T’s acquisition of DIRECTV would enable it to (1) migrate its existing U-verse video service customers to DIRECTV’s DBS service, and (2) market DIRECTV bundled with U-verse broadband, rather than U-verse video bundled with U-verse broadband, to all future potential customers in its ILEC footprint. In essence, over some unknown period of time, AT&T could exit the landline cable market altogether in its ILEC footprint and provide MVPD service exclusively through DIRECTV’s DBS service.

Such a migration could free AT&T of all PEG capacity and support obligations. That, in turn, would inflict grave injury on localism, as AT&T video subscribers would lose all access to

PEG programming and with it, all access to the local community programming that only PEG centers can and do provide. See Part III (A) above.

The Application is unclear about whether, and to what extent, AT&T would pursue such a customer migration from U-verse video service to DIRECTV DBS Service. AT&T commits only that, “[w]ithin the U-verse footprint, AT&T customers will be able to keep their U-verse video service.” Public Interest Statement at 4. That commitment, however, apparently relates only to AT&T’s existing U-verse video customers, not to any new video customers in the U- verse footprint. And merely permitting existing U-verse video service subscribers “to keep” that service says nothing about whether, and how, AT&T intends to try to persuade or entice those subscribers to abandon U-verse video in favor of DIRECTV satellite services. Moreover, elsewhere AT&T describes one of the primary benefits of the transaction as “[t]he ability to pair

Telephone Companies, WC Docket Nos. 01-338 et al. (adopted Oct. 22, 2004) available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253492A2.doc. Instead, AT&T deployed U-verse, which is not FTTH.

24 DIRECTV video with AT&T broadband” (id. at 1), suggesting that AT&T does ultimately intend to migrate its U-verse video subscriber base to DIRECTV for video service.

Permitting existing franchised cable operators like AT&T with PEG obligations to acquire DBS providers and migrate to DBS inherently disserves localism and thus the public interest. It would deprive the providers’ customers of access to the local electoral, educational and civic programming that only PEG provides, and would leave them with only a largely national, cookie-cutter programming menu instead. That is not a shift that the Commission can or should permit, consistent with its obligations to protect the public interest.

25 IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, The Commission should grant this petition and deny its consent to the Application. In addition, the Commission should act on and grant the ACM PEG

Petition before taking any action on the AT&T/DIRECTV Application.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James N. Horwood Michael S. Wassenaar James N. Horwood ACM Public Policy Advocate Tillman L. Lay Alliance for Community Media Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 4248 Park Glen Road 1875 Eye Street, NW Minneapolis, MN 55416 Suite 700 (612) 298-3805 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 879-4000

Counsel for the Alliance for Community Media and the Alliance For Communications Democracy Todd O’Boyle Program Director Media and Democracy Program Common Cause 1133 19th Street, NW 9th Floor Washington, DC 20036

September 16, 2014

26 APPENDIX 1 7KH$OOLDQFHIRU &RPPXQLFDWLRQV'HPRFUDF\ $&' a $JJUHJDWH'DWDRQ&DEOH9LHZHUVKLS

$SULO

$WWDFKPHQW$*11R *URXS: &RPPXQLFDWLRQV//&  ZZZJURXSZFRPFRP 3XUSRVH0HWKRGRORJ\

ACD requested that Group W Communications compile data gathered from research conducted in PEG communities around the nation to assess to what extent people value local programming, and to compile additional findings that can help advise future media planning.

‡ &RPSDUDWLYHDQGDJJUHJDWHGGDWD EDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQ3(*

FRPPXQLWLHV Northeast Southest Midwest ‡ *HRJUDSKLFGLVWULEXWLRQ Southwest Pacific West ‡ &RPPXQLWLHV¶SRSXODWLRQUDQJHVIURP WRRYHUPLOOLRQ 2000 & earlier ‡ /RQJLWXGLQDOGLVWULEXWLRQ 2001 - 2005 2006 & later 6XPPDU\RI0DMRU)LQGLQJV ‡ &DEOHVXEVFULEHUVSODFHLPSRUWDQFHRQORFDO FRPPXQLW\SURJUDPPLQJ ± VD\LWLVYHU\RUVRPHZKDWLPSRUWDQW ‡ &DEOHVXEVFULEHUVYDOXHORFDOFRPPXQLW\ SURJUDPPLQJ ± VD\RUPRUHHDFKPRQWKVKRXOGEHXVHGWRFUHDWH WKLVSURJUDPPLQJ ‡ &KDQQHOORFDWLRQPDWWHUV ± $VFKDQQHOQXPEHUVLQFUHDVHVXUILQJ EURZVLQJGHFUHDVHV ‡ 'LJLWDOGLYLGHLVUHDODQGSHUVLVWV ± 6XEVFULEHUVPDNLQJOHVVWKDQRIDQQXDOKRXVHKROG LQFRPHDUHVLJQLILFDQWO\OHVVOLNHO\WRDFFHVVWKH,QWHUQHW ± -XVWRYHUKDOIDVPDQ\VXEVFULEHUVRYHUDFFHVVWKH ,QWHUQHWDVWKRVHXQGHU RIFDEOHVXEVFULEHUVEHOLHYH WKDWORFDOSURJUDPPLQJLVLPSRUWDQW

42.1% 45% 40% 32.2% 35% 30% 25% 15.7% 20% 15% 7.0% 10% 2.9% 5% 0% Very Important Somewhat Not Very Not at All Don't Know Important Important Important

Question -- How important is it to have cable channels that feature local community programming about organizations, individuals, events, schools, and local government? (combined “very” & “somewhat” important) ± $JJUHJDWHGDWDEDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQFRPPXQLWLHV &DEOHVXEVFULEHUVYDOXH ORFDOSURJUDPPLQJ RIFDEOHVXEVFULEHUVVD\RUPRUHSHUPRQWK VKRXOGEHXVHGWRFUHDWHORFDOFRPPXQLW\SURJUDPPLQJ

$2 13.3% $3 $1 11.5% 14.4%

Nothing, Don't Know Not Specified 40.8% $4 + 19.9%

Question -- How much of your monthly cable bill do you think should be set aside and used to create local community programming about organizations, individuals, events, schools, and local government?

± $JJUHJDWHGDWDEDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQFRPPXQLWLHV $VFKDQQHOQXPEHUVLQFUHDVH VXUILQJEHKDYLRUGHFUHDVHV

60% Lower Tier Channels, e.g., ch 1-49

59.2% Middle Tier Channels, e.g., ch 50-99

50% Higher Tier Channels, e.g., ch 100 + 53.8%

40% 35.5% 35.0% 26.9% 28.3%

30% 29.6% 19.4% 20% 15.0%

10%

0% 8VXDOO\ 6RPHWLPHV 5DUHO\

Question -- Cable companies now offer hundreds of channels of video programming. Please think about your viewing habits for a moment, and estimate how often you watch programs that are shown on:

± 3UHOLPLQDU\GDWDEDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQIRXUFRPPXQLWLHV 'LJLWDOGLYLGHLVUHDO SHUVLVWV

6XEVFULEHUVPDNLQJOHVVWKDQRIDQQXDOKRXVHKROG LQFRPHDUHVLJQLILFDQWO\OHVVOLNHO\WRDFFHVVWKH,QWHUQHW

87.4% 79.8% 90% 80% 66.2% 70% 52.9% 60% 50% 39.5% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under $25,000 $25-40,000 $40-60,000 $60-100,000 $100,000 +

3HUFHQWRIFDEOHVXEVFULEHUVW ± $JJUHJDWHGDWDEDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQFRPPXQLWLHV

KDWDFFHVVWKH,QWH

UQHWE\+RXVHK

ROGLQFRPH 'LJLWDOGLYLGHLVUHDO SHUVLVWV

-XVWRYHUKDOIDVPDQ\VXEVFULEHUVRYHU DFFHVVWKH,QWHUQHWDVWKRVHXQGHU

77.0% 76.1% 75.2% 80% 66.2% 70% 60% 50% 40.1% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under 30 30 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 +

3HUFHQWRIFDEOHVXEVFULEHUVW

± $JJUHJDWHGDWDEDVHGXSRQVDPSOLQJLQFRPPXQLWLHV

KDWDFFHVVWKH,Q

WHUQHWE\$JH APPENDIX 2 RESULTS OF ACM FALL 2012 SURVEY OF OVER 200 PEG CENTERS’ ELECTION COVERAGE AND PROGRAMMING

      

               !  "

#$% & '( % 

*+'

,-


        


#$ !  .





 
 

) &




      

 12  $     $ 3,3    $!%

#$%  '( % 


8  

9!      

:( 2 2 

:( 2  

:( 2 ;  

:( 2 22


        


#$ !  .

4 $* % 

 

 0&#$&% "$* $ /
 

38 "$"! /
 

38 #' /
 

38 +*'"# /0 

38 # 


) .% 

4 -! 5  26 7

  !"# ""$#%&%#%! "'"#() $* "$# "%+# 


- . # "* !''"!,&#)$ " #"##  ## "* !''"!(

 "%* $ # "* !'"!/#0)" "#%# "%



 -1.

  # *# "##0' '"#

-.

  * $"*( #(

 - 1.

")2"0"!#0## ""3 "!40,516

- .

 700&"" +# "##"# '#0# )"


-
1.

  #$"#)"#$# $#0(


 -.




      

$  " "*#""$$# '



- .

.#" #&*#"



-1.

 " */# "##%)#0"# )"& $(





- .

9#% ! "! ' # "



- 1.




      

/ <$  ! 2        $   "

#$% 00 '( % 

: !  !

   !

 !  !


        


#$ !  .

3#0"
0  
  

# 0  / / 

. #0"0   

 

) 00




      

 ! ! 2 ! 2$  $     ="

#$% 0 '( % /

:  

'  

>  


        


#$ !  .

3 # " 


### " &/&



:$# " / / 

) .% 0




      

 ! 2 56 $   "

#$% & '( % 

  

  2 $

  = $


        


#$ !  .

5"$$#$&# &


5"$$# '# )"0 &&

5"$$#"#) 0/0 


) .% &

4 -! 5  26 7

# "#



-.

 5"$$# ,9&#,3!  '"; #<" '# " !'




- .

 5"$$#"&'#* !'(





-
1.

 5"$$###'"#2 '"6


-.

 %* $$=#8=0 )"#"$$## &!# " 0 )(


- 1.

 .##05"$$#27*$"#00 '6=70* "&0"$#0"$$#=

- .

 ;$ ; # $
 

-1.

'"#"$$###'"#
 

-
1.

)'!0#$ "#)&##" # %#
 
 -1.

 '##0"$$### "* $$0 )/"$$#*8# #0*&/0 )**#%$"!'*!"

- . * $

$ " "#80 )

- .

 $%")* #



-1.

 =5"$$# "9'"$=51725 ''"#%17 "60&" "!/ '"#"$$#



-
1. ##'"## "$$#"

 '"#"$$#" '


-1.

3!  '"; #/* " $"$$#+# " '(


-1.




      

 $!'"#

-1.

 # "# " &#"& $

-.

3 # "5 !

- .

5"$$###'"#

-.

 "$$# '$&# !">$&% #0/'$&%



-
1.


3 35 *$# " # "!0#

 - 1.

 : ; #/<" '# "< !'


 - .

 '"#"$$###'"#


-.

 5"$$# 


-

.

 "$$#$#0**$/'"#"# $# "


- .

  0 #$ "#) "#0* * # "


- .

 3 # "?#



-.

 #%*"##"#),"$$###'"#,& # # "'$ "



-.

 5'*!"1



-.

 5"$$###'"#



-.


: ' " #<9




-1.

 5"$$#* $$
/'"# ** #"#%# #8& ##0'"$#0'*!""#80 )




-

1.  '#(

  5 ''"#%5 ''"#%$# ,") !



- 1.

 &1"" "'"#



-
1.

 ;$ ; # $


 -1.

 5 ''"#%4#"4 $$


 -1.

 3 # " ! "# "$%( # "#,'##0"$$#




-.

 3/"



 - 1.

 ;$ ; #@ $

 
-.

 <'* #"# ''"#%*"$ "(

 

-.


3 # "!0#5 !

 
 - 1.

 # "!0#?#0 ) "! % " " #0"A"#8%,)00#0 5"""#0


-1. 4 $#!%!" 

 5"$$#* " $0 )

 - 1.

 .##05"$$#/##'"#


 - .

 ;$  #!$2'"#*"$$#6




-1.




      

0 7   $ !    ?   @!     "

#$% 
'( % 

*

,


        


#$ !  .

 &0 


 /
 

) 




      

& 12  $ 3*3    0A    !   2     ? %

#$% / '( % 0

4 . 7

3;
 
-.

 ?* # ' ")**"$$ ## "(


- .

 3!  '"; #(<"*## "(


- .

 3!  '"; #  #B# $




- .

0'&  ''



 -1.

 3!  '"; #@


 -
.

 3!  '"; #2$"#&"06


-.

3!  '"; #



-.

 #0"A"#8%C"#%




-1.

 3!  '"; #




- 1.

# )"! "'"#,! ) '" #,"# ""$$, #0"#(


- 1.

 3 50'& 5 ''



-.

 3 3!  '"; #

-
.

 ." 1# "5 ".$"&.$"#0.$"50'& 5 ''

- .

3!  '"; #,150'& 5 ''


- 1.

 15 #&%C"#%

 -1.

 50'& 5 '',5#%5 ",3 " "* #,?*&""$9' ##(
 


-.

B3!  '"; # #5' "#50'& 5 ''
 
- .

98 #5 "#%2.6?! "50'& 5 ''1**;%2.650'& 5 ''
 
-
.

 3& ! *, '"@! *,.$D#! *, #0! *,!0& 0 $ !,1#$ %,5#%
 

- . $*#


3!  '"; #,704'87&"
 

- .

 #0"#
 


- 1.

 3!  '"; #3 50'& 5 ''
 

-
1.

 3!  '"; #50'& 5 ''
 

-
1.

 500/"! $3!  '"; #"! $5 ''"#% '"
 
 -
1.

 50'& 5 '',3!  '"; #," 5"#
 
 -
1.

 3! ) '" #2)) "%#0 #$&%"#$*#%6
 
 -
1.

 1'"1 # " C"#% '"3!  '"; #1"!# "5:$# "1"!# "#0/



-
.  ")& !

 3!  '"; #,150'& 5 '',3 )**

-
.

 3! ) '" #

-
.




      


##0%(<"#0*#)*#"$)#0#05 ''"#%)**  *(

-
.

 50'& 5 ''

 -
.

 4#0C"#%3!  '"; # B'"?!0#5 '' "

 - .

  '5 ''"#%5 * # "5 '' "5.19' ##%

-.

 3!  '"; #

-
.

 3!  '"; #,50'& 5 '',#(

-.

 3!  '"; #

-
.

 3 1 C :. ;7 ?3153 1 ?/7B :?74?1 19;517 (

- .

 "&#B '<" * #$, "&# #1$ %5 # "


-
.

 3 )**



- 1.


3 00, ")**"$ '!>"(



- 1.

 5 ''"#%?$ :B4



-
1.

 50'& 5 '',3!  '"; #


- 1.

 3 9' #"$?*&"# "D( '"@5&*#/50'& 5 ''


-1.

  79
(
:.  #)%70"5 !


-1.

 3!  '"; #


-1.

 1!"%5 ! .%"$545?$

- 1.

 AEA05 ''"#%1 # "#.7F*%1 # ".).  " '

-1. 9 *'"#4 $5&

  # " %)*#")#070)4$ $#"$$7'"$4.

 -.

 3! ) '"; # 5

- .

3!  '"; #

-.

 3!  '"; #3 )!"># "

-
.

 5 "#5 #7'24%1)  *6G3!  '"; # 9& ;%G5 "#5 #

-
. 5 "2 6G5 "#5 #5 "#%58/? $G9""$.!#30: "$# "

 3!  '"; #, "#%, " "'"# !(

-
.

) "#0"F## " '

-
.

 3 )**

-.

 5"# #0#$% 3 <2"#"#   !"># "6

- .

50'& 5 '',3!  '"; #,;% '"@5&,9' # '"@5& "#


-. 5>5 "#%,"#5>!0& ,5" '

50'& 5 ''5 ''"#%5 !



- 1.

 3!  '"; # #0.$"$1(.$"$5 "#%?*&"#%* $$#0 )"* !'


-1. $"!#0*'%#"!#0"$$# 0(


#! "&%,# * 0""


- .

  ")"$ $ "$ 50'&

-.

 3!  '"; #

- .

 3!  '"; #


-
.

 1 # " B)"55&


 - .

 3!  '"; #"$  ''"#% !"># "


-.




      

 3!  '"; #


- .

 3!  '"; #


-

.

 3!  '"; #


-.

  "150'& 5 ''


-.


')D)0D "3!  '"; #


- .

 #0%) ) 8$)#0#00'&"$#03! ) '" #


- .

 # #3$!)**


-.

 ' ""!)G& $%50'& 5 ''


-
.

 3!  '"; #


-.

 A)",5#%5&,:'4,' $"$1"(,



- .

 5'*&5 "#%3!  '"; #5'*&5 "#%5 '' "5#%  ##4"?$



- . #) 8

 50'& 5 ''



-.

 3!  '"; #,50'& 5 '', #*#



-.

 50'& 5 '',#A4"E  "1 # ","5 ''"#%1 # "E



-. :"$ #0 #00 

115#$50! 50*#,4 $  # ",#(



- .

 C/4 "5 "#%23 /%$!"#%6



-.

 3! '"; #



-

.

 :14



-
.

3!  '"; #



-.

 3!  '"; #3 00 ")**



-.

 3!  '"; #5'*!"'"!  "$$#3 .!>"#%")0 )(3 



-. $ 0 )

%)




- 1.

1153C,0$*0,5#% 05 '' "@,.$. &>"! H#, '#0?$




-1.  H#

 1"E1'" #1"211165#%  8  '"#  8  #0




-1. '"# 43!  '"; #

3 )**7  *0 50'& 5 ''




-1.

 4."#'"4( !4 "5 " "1!"!




-1.

 # ) 3!  '"; # !"># "




-1.

 5"#5 "#%3!  '"; #




- 1.

3!  '"; #, 50'& 5 '', " '$ *'"#! *




-
1.

 3!  '"; #,3 7#%,9' #5 ''##,  # "5 '' ",5#



- 1. 5 # ",3 ?$ ## "2'#"!"#6,"$' (

 3;



- 1.

3 =#0=)&#"$3 )**



-1.

#0( ', ")**"$8$3 



-1.

 3!  '"; #,7/5#%B$, 50'& 5 '',50#5 ''"# ",5#% 



-1. ?0"$5#%;)7;




      


3" "5 "#%)



-
1.

 " 5"#4 8&



-
1.

 3!  '"; #



-1.

 3 ")**



-1.

 #0"#


 -1.

 D%


 - 1.

 3!  '"; #50"& 5 ''


 -
1.

 3!  '"; #


 -1.

 3!  '"; #"$ #0"#


 -1.

 3!  '"; #


 - 1.

7 )" "'"#,3 D "#,5 ''"#%1# "  *


 - 1.

 70 "  *(3!  '"; #(115


 - 1.

 )**,$ ,0'&


 -1.

 5 "!# "5"#  #!0& 0 $5 "!# "#"0*;B55"#1<


 -1.

3 )**2:?B$)6,3 C"#2C/.9#' #06


 - 1.

 9' % )(5.C)5"#

 
-
.

 :' #03!  '"; #




-.

3!  '"; #,4'87&"





-

1.

3!  '"; #




- 1.

 4/:11



 -1.


3!  '"; # 1'#%,&#%$"!*"!'"*# " "(





- .

 3!  '"; #70%'*"2")**670# "5 "#%50'& 5 ''3%50'&

 
- . 5 ''

 50'& 5 '' B)GB)"55&GB " D*"50'&GC"#% B)3)

 

- . 0 ,  #0

 3!  '"; #4' "#5#>"/B$4' "##04' "#9' #E?*&"5 ''##



- . 5#>": '

 1<,5"#:  #!0& 0 $ 5 "!# ",5 "!# "4"5 ",5 "!# "!0& 0 $


- 1. 5 & #,:"$ 5 "!# ",3# "4"1 # ",."#;!1 # ",;B 55&,

 50'& 5 ''

 - 1.

 3 4#

-1.

 3 )**


-1.

 3!  '"; #(


- 1.

 3!  '"; #, 50'& 5 '',7/5#%50'& 5 '',7/5#%B$,


-
1. 50#5 ''"# ",5#% ?0"$


3!  '"; #

 - 1.

 #'50'& 5 ''? #%A"!0# 5 '&0 ! *

 - 1.

 3 )**2 # "D "6,3 )&#2 # "#06

 -1.

 3!  '"; #G9' #"$?*&"5"#5 ''##G#$"# !">G & !G 


 - . ")**G5#%.$G#0( '




      

 3 )**"$ #0.$5"#


 -
.

 3!  '"; #G7)"5# #050'& 5 ''



- .

 3;



-.

 3!  '"; #



-.

 3!  '"; #50'& 5 ''




-1.

 3!  '"; #



-
1.


: #%"50*# 703"8<"(115: #%"4"0 18# "5&



-
1.

  #0"A"#8%C"#%



-
1.

 B'*0 >##,;%:?$ 2ID6,3!  '"; #,B.,;%1$ #,


 - 1.  #0'*# ".$,;%7'7$




      

<=   22   =       !   "

#$% 
& '( % 

*

,


        


#$ !  .



&&


 / 

) 
&




      

9   ! =56 2 22  !  !  22   ! =     %

#$% 0 '( % /

:

'

>


        


#$ !  .

3  &0/


##
00


:$  

) .% 0




      

 !  !  22  56 =         !  9+B "

#$% 0& '( % 

*

,


        


#$ !  .


/
/


 0& 

) 0&




      

 <=  = =     22      9+B "

#$% 
 '( % 

*

,


        


#$ !  .

 &/


 &&

) 





      

 ! =56 2 22  $! !  !  22   !  =  "

#$% / '( % &/

:

'

>


        


#$ !  .

3  &0
&


## &/



:$ 
 

) .% /


APPENDIX 3 EXAMPLES OF PEG ELECTION-RELATED PROGRAMMING Government Programming on

CITY OF CHICAGO

Local programs on CAN TV:

x Chicago Aldermen Walter Burnett (27) and Willie Cochran (20) present regular programs on ward activities.

x CAN TV’s weekly Political Forum features elected officials taking phone calls live from viewers about ward and district activities.

x In 2013, 150 programs introduced viewers to 116 candidates for the CAN TV provided coverage of a town hall meeting on gun violence featuring Mayor March primary and 2nd Congressional District's special election. Rahm Emanuel and others. x Caucus Talks is a monthly live call in show featuring members of the Chicago Aldermanic Black Caucus discussing relevant issues for the communities they serve.

x For the March 18, 2014 Primary Election 137 programs introduced 96 candidates as they campaigned for 21 elected positions.

x CAN TV provided live coverage on TV and online of a new CPS initiative: Be Active, Eat Right, Learn Better!

City Officials and Agencies on CAN TV (2013 to present):

MAYOR Rahm Emanuel, TREASURER Stephanie Neely, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDENT Garry McCarthy.

ALDERMEN | Proco Joe Moreno (1), Robert Fioretti (2), Pat Dowell (3), Will Burns (4), Leslie Hairston (5), Roderick T. Sawyer (6), Natashia Holmes (7), Michelle Harris (8), Anthony Beale (9), John Pope (10), George Cardenas (12), Toni Foulkes (15), Willie Cochran (20), Howard Brookins, Jr. (21), Ricardo Muñoz (22), Roberto Maldonado (26) Walter Burnett, Jr. (27), Jason Ervin (28), Deborah Graham (29), Ariel E. Reboyras (30), Ray Suarez (31), Scott Waguespack (32), Deb Mell (33), Carrie Austin (34), Rey Colon (35), Nicholas Sposato (36), John Arena (45), Ameya Pawar (47), Harry Osterman (48), Joe Moore (49)

CITY AGENCIES | Department of Cultural Affairs, Department of Family Support Services

Government Programming on COOK COUNTY

County programs on CAN TV:

x Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown gives viewers the opportunity to call into her agency's live show to get information about record expungement, child support and the other services available through her office.

x Cook County Recorder of Deeds Karen Yarbough hosts a regular live, call-in show called “Housing Matters” and Chicago Westside Branch NAACP hosted a debate between Cook answers a variety of viewer calls related to housing County Board candidates covered issues. live by CAN TV.

x Many Cook County Circuit Court judges weighed in during the Illinois Judicial Council’s Juvenile Justice Symposium, which CAN TV covered.

x Members of the Cook County Bar Association provide free legal advice to viewers during their live call-in show

County Officials and Agencies on CAN TV:

COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES | Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle • State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez • Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown • Cook County Recorder of Deeds Karen Yarbrough • County Sheriff Tom Dart • County Clerk David Orr • Commissioner Jesus Garcia (7) • Commissioner Bridget Gainer (10) • Commissioner Larry Suffredin (13) • Board of Review Dan Patlak.

METROPOLITAN RECLAMATION DISTRICT | Commissioner Frank Avila

COUNTY AGENCIES | Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Health & Hospital Systems, Cook County Jail, Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Cook County Sherriff’s Office, Cook County State's Attorney Office, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center

JUDGES | Andrea Buford • Cynthia Cobbs • James Epstein • Jerry Esrig • Timothy C. Evans • Megan Goldish • Sophia H. Hall • Carol M. Howard • Marianne Jackson • Marilyn F. Johnson • Susan Kennedy-Sullivan • Sharon Oden-Johnson • Michael Otto • Marguerite Anne Quinn • William Raines • Jesse G. Reyes • Kristal Rivers • Diana Rosario • Alfred Swanson, Jr. • Sybil C. Thomas • Peter Vilkelis

Government Programming on STATE OF ILLINOIS

State programs on CAN TV: x CAN TV provided live coverage on TV and online of a House Judiciary Committee hearing on concealed carry, pension reform events, and immigration reform protests

x CAN TV provided live coverage on TV and online of a public hearing on gambling expansion amendments to Senate Bill 1739

CAN TV provided live coverage as x CAN TV provided coverage on TV and online of Gov. Pat Gov. Pat Quinn signed marriage equality into law in Illinois Quinn signing the state marriage equality legislation into law "[CAN TV] empowers residents to use media responsibly while x The Illinois Channel covers legislative hearings, Illinois exercising the power of free speech." Supreme Court hearings, and public policy events from across the state. Illinois Rep. Arthur Turner

State Officials and Agencies on CAN TV:

EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS | Governor Pat Quinn • Lieutenant Governor Sheila Simon • Secretary of State Jesse White • Attorney General Lisa Madigan • Treasurer Dan Rutherford • Illinois State Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka • Senate President John Cullerton (6) • Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno (41) • House Republican Leader Tom Cross (84).

STATE SENATORS | Mattie Hunter (3), Kimberly A. Lightford (4), Patricia Van Pelt (5), John Cullerton (6), John G. Mulroe (10), Jacqueline Y. Collins (16), Donne Trotter (17), Steve Rauschenberger (22), Kirk Dillard (24), Jim Oberweis (25), Matt Murphy (27), Pamela Althoff (32), Toi Hutchinson (40), Christine Radogno (41), Jeanne Ives (42), Bill Brady (44)

STATE REPRESENTATIVES | Kenneth Dunkin (5), Esther Golar (6), Emanuel Chris Welch (7), LaShawn K. Ford (8), Arthur Turner (9), Ann Williams (11), Kelly Cassidy (14), Robert F. Martwick, Jr (19), Michael McAuliffe (20), Michael J. Zalewski (21), Silvana Tabares (21), Michael Noland (22), Daniel Burke (23), Christian Mitchell (26), Monique D. Davis (27), Mary E. Flowers (31), Andre Thapedi (32), Marcus C. Evans, Jr. (33), Elgie Sims, Jr. (34), Keith Farnham (43), Fred Crespo (44), Dennis M. Reboletti (46), Patricia Bellock (47), Ed Sullivan Jr. (51), Elaine Nekritz (57), Scott Drury (58), Rita Mayfield (60), Jack Franks (63), David Harris (66), Charles Jefferson (67), John Cabello (68), Ron Sandack (81), Jim Durkin (82), Tom Cross (84), Jim Sacia (89), Jehan Gordon (92) Jil Tracy (94), Brandon Phelps (96), Rich Brauer (100), Adam Brown (101), Dwight Kay (112), Jay Hoffman (113), Mike Bost (115), John E. Bradley (117)

STATE AGENCIES | Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Healthcare & Family Services, Department of Human Services, Illinois African-American Family Commission, Illinois Commerce Commission, Illinois Student Assistance Commission, Illinois Tollway

JUDICIAL BRANCH | Appellate Judges: Freddrenna Lyle Government Programming on FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Federal programs on CAN TV:

x In 2013, CAN TV provided live coverage on TV and online of all the candidate debates for the 2nd Congressional District special election

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin provides x After 19 years, the U.S. Social Security Administration updates to his constituents on his program “A Different View.” continues to educate the public- in English and Spanish- on changes to services like Medicare and retirement benefits

x Congressman Danny K. Davis (7th) gives Chicago residents the opportunity to call into his weekly live program to discuss community and civic issues, as he has for 15 years

x Jesse Brown VA Medical Center and National Veterans Art Museum do live, call-in programming as part of “Veteran’s Issues,” providing peer support and information to help veterans heal from the psychological toll of war Congressman Danny K. Davis hosts “Listening to the People.”

"I believe in the power and responsibility of free speech and consider CAN TV a unique and extraordinary vehicle for the exercise of this fundamental First Amendment right of all our people."

Congressman Danny K. Davis

Federal Officials and Agencies on CAN TV:

FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES | Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack • Senator Dick Durbin • Rep. Robin Kelly (2) • Rep. Peter Roskam (6) • Rep. Danny K. Davis (7) • Rep. Jan Schakowsky (9) • Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI- 13).

FEDERAL AGENCIES | Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Social Security Administration

Government Programming on

LBCAP/PADNET Election Shows

Show Date TRT Content VOD views as of 6/4/14 5/28/14 60 min Election Perspectives: City Council District 5 Runoff 101

5/14/14 60 min Election Perspectives: City Council District 1 Runoff 39

5/7/14 60 min Election Perspectives: Mayoral Runoff 74

3/12/14 60 min Ninth City Council District Candidate Forum 54

3/5/14 60 min Seventh City Council District Candidate Forum 42

2/19/14 60 min Fifth City Council District Candidate Forum 131

2/12/14 60 min Third City Council District Candidate Forum 59

2/5/14 60 min First City Council District Candidate Forum 83

1/22/14 60 min Mayoral Candidate Forum 139

11/3/13 30 min. Ninth City Council District Candidate Forum 45

10/30/13 30 min. Seventh City Council District Candidate Forum 26

10/30/13 30 min. Fifth City Council District Candidate Forum 66

10/23/13 30 min. Third City Council District Candidate Forum 38

10/23/13 30 min. First City Council District Candidate Forum 79

11/2/13 60 min Mayoral Candidate Forum 103

TOTALS 12.5 hours 1079

AccessFramingham ServingTownofFramingham,pop.65K,andadjacentcommunitiesservedbyVerizonFIOS ElectionRelatedProgramming Alllocalproductionalsoofferedonlineandondemand Premiere Running Date ProgramTitle Description Race Time 2/2/2013 EricSilvermanforSchoolCommittee(PublicAccessProduction) EricSilverman FraminghamSchoolCommittee 0:29:12 3/11/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson CharlesSisitsky FraminghamSelectmen 0:30:00 3/25/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson AndreaCarrͲEvans&LewColton FraminghamPlanningBoard 0:57:02 3/25/2013 TheAudreyHallShow CandidatesforPlanningBoard FraminghamPlanningBoard 1:01:30 4/1/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson VictorOrtizandSueBernstein FraminghamPlanningBoard 0:59:31 4/3/2013 2013PTOCandidateForum CandididateforTownElection MultipleTownOffices 1:29:55 4/4/2013 FraminghamSierraClubCandidateForum ManyCandidates FraminghamSelectmenandPlanningBd 1:00:00 4/8/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MichaelBower FraminghamSelectmen 0:29:23 6/20/2013 EdMarkeyforUSSenateRally(PublicAccessProduction EdMarkey USSenate 1:03:56 8/12/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson KarenSpilka USCongress 0:59:08 8/26/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson KatherineClark USCongress 0:28:51 8/26/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson PeterKoutoujian USCongress 0:28:55 9/2/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson KristenHughes,ChairofMAGOP FallStateandNationalRaces 0:27:38 9/2/2013 TheAudreyHallShow KarenSpilka USCongress 0:59:01 9/9/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson CarlSciortino USCongress 0:28:19 9/9/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson WilliamBrownsberger USCongress 0:28:21 9/23/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MartinLong USCongress 0:28:27 9/23/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson PaulJohnMaisano USCongress 0:28:35 9/28/2013 5thCongressionalDistrictDemocraticCandidatesForumatFSU ManyCandidates USCongress 1:58:40 10/7/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson FrankAddivinola USCongress 0:27:20 10/7/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson TomTierney USCongress 0:28:22 10/7/2013 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MikeStopa USCongress 0:28:47 10/10/2013 5thCongressionalDistrictRepublicanCandidatesForumatFSU ManyCandidates USCongress 1:06:46 10/30/2013 TempleBethAmBrotherhoodBreakfast KatherineClark&FrankAddivinola USCongress 1:03:37 11/17/2013 JimPillsburyLIVE(PublicAccessProduction) JimAulenti USCongress 0:30:00 3/6/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson DeborahButler FraminghamSelectmen 0:28:50 3/6/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson DougFreeman FraminghamSelectmen 0:28:32 3/13/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson CherylTullyͲStoll FraminghamSelectmen 0:28:52 3/13/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson RyanGagne FraminghamSelectmen 0:29:11 3/20/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson LaurieLee FraminghamSelectmen 0:28:54 3/25/2014 TownwidePTOCandidateForum CandidatesforTownElection MultipleTownOffices 1:46:06 3/28/2014 FraminghamSierraClubCandidateForumatHeritage CandidatesforTownElection MultipleTownOffices 1:10:22 4/21/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson SteveGrossman&JamesArenaͲDeRosa MAGovernor&MALtGovernor 0:57:58 5/5/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson CarmineGentile&BrianLeFort CandidatesforStateRep 0:54:27 5/19/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson BrianHerr USSenate 0:27:58 5/19/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MikeLake MALt.Governor 0:28:28 5/31/2014 DemocraticCandidatesBreakfast,Part1(PublicAccessProduction) ManyCandidates MAGovernor&MALtGovernor 6/4/2014 DemocraticCandidatesBreakfast,Part2(PublicAccessProduction) ManyCandidates MAAttorneyGeneral&MATreasurer 1:16:27 6/9/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson LelandCheung MALt.Governor 0:29:07 6/9/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson JohnMiller MAAttorneyGeneral 0:28:58 6/23/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson DonBerwick MAGovernor 0:29:00 7/3/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson SteveKerrigan MALt.Governor 0:28:45 7/7/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson DeborahGoldberg MATreasurer 0:28:44 7/7/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson ChrisWalsh StateRep 0:29:17 7/21/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson TomConroy MATreasurer 0:29:10 7/21/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson TomSannicandro StateRep 0:28:55 8/4/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MauraHealeyInterview MAAttorneyGeneral 0:29:14 8/4/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson SuzanneBumpInterview MAStateAuditor 0:29:01 8/11/2014 TheAudreyHallShow MarthaCoakleyInterview MAGovernor 0:29:19 8/18/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson SheldonSchwartzInterview USCongress 0:28:57 8/18/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson MarkFisherInterview MAGovernor 0:28:46 8/25/2014 TheAudreyHallShow CarmineGentile&BrianLeFort CandidatesforStateRep 0:59:45 8/29/2014 VoteforDonBerwick(PublicAccessProduction) DonBerwick MAGovernor 0:25:08 9/1/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson KarynPolitoInterview MALt.Governor 0:29:25 9/1/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson WarrenTolmanInterview MAAttorneyGeneral 0:29:30 9/6/2014 DistrictAttorneyDebateatFraminghamPublicLibrary MarianRyanandMichaelSullivan MiddlesexCountyDA 1:23:25 9/10/2014 PoliticalDiscussionwithDaveHutchinson KarenSpilkaInterview StateSenate 0:28:38 APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS OF RECENT PEG A CCESS CENTER CLOSURES, FUNDING CUTBACKS AND RELATED THREATS

PREPARED FOR ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS DEMOCRACY

April 8, 2011

WITH SUPPORT FROM

THE BENTON FOUNDATION ANALYSIS OF RECENT PEG ACCESS CENTER CLOSURES, FUNDING CUTBACKS AND RELATED THREATS

INTRODUCTION

The Alliance for Communications Democracy (ACD), through a grant provided by The Benton Foundation, worked with The Buske Group to conduct an online survey and related activities to identify: 1. The degree to which funding support for Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access resources and services from cable companies and local governments has been reduced since 2005, and the reasons for these cutbacks. 2. Places where PEG Access Centers have closed since 2005, and the types of Access (i.e., public [“P”], educational [“E”], or government [“G”]) that are no longer provided in those communities. 3. Places where PEG Access Centers may have to close in the next three years, and the reasons for these anticipated closures. 4. Other anticipated threats to the health of PEG Access Centers.

This information was collected through a variety of methods, including: x an on-line survey of members of the ACD, Alliance for Community Media (ACM), the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), and other PEG Access Centers to identify current and recent funding trends at existing PEG Access centers in the United States; x follow-up contacts with survey respondents (and non-respondents) as needed, to help ensure accuracy and completion of the responses; x direct contacts with community media regional leaders, to solicit their assistance in the identification of PEG Access Centers that have been closed recently; and x a review of newspaper and online articles in recent years that discussed closures, funding cutbacks and threats to the future existence of PEG Access Centers.

Our research documents the fact that since 2005, many PEG Access Centers have been closed or endured severe funding cuts, or may be forced to cease operations soon. This has occurred primarily as a result of new state franchising laws and decisions by local governments.

This report provides details about the magnitude of recent PEG Access Center closures, funding cuts, and threats to the future existence of PEG Access in a growing number of communities.

1 KEY FINDINGS x PEG Access Centers in at least 100 communities across the United States have been closed since 2005. A disproportionate number (93) exclusively served the public. x Hundreds more PEG Access Centers in six states affected by state franchising laws may be forced to close or experience serious threats to financial and in-kind support over the next three years. x Almost half of the 165 survey respondents providing financial information for 2005 and 2010 reported an average funding drop of 40% during that time period. x Of the 100 survey respondents reporting in-kind support from their cable operators, 20% indicated in-kind materials and services had been cut back or eliminated since 2005. x The primary reasons cited for reductions in funding and in-kind resources for PEG Access Centers were new state franchising laws and/or decisions by local governments.

2 ON-LINE SURVEY OF PEG ACCESS CENTERS

Using the “SurveyMonkey” on-line survey research software, a questionnaire was prepared and uploaded to collect information from Executive Directors or Managers of PEG Access Centers that oversee the development and presentation of programming PEG Access cable channels in the United States.1 Announcements about this on-line survey were distributed via the ACD, ACM, and NATOA listserves, as well as through direct contacts with local PEG Access Centers. Participation in this survey was encouraged via several email “blasts” and other efforts during the period when the survey was active (January 10 through February 15, 2011.)

A total of 286 respondents participated in the on-line survey.

Of the 286 respondents, 207 provided partial financial data and information about recent cutbacks and/or anticipated threats to their organization’s funding, in-kind resources, and/or channels in the next three years. Of those 207, 165 provided complete answers to questions regarding PEG Access funding support received in 2005 and 2010 from: (1) their local government [as an allocation from its general fund, and/or the franchise fees it received from the cable operator(s)], and (2) the cable operator(s) -- in addition to funds that were required to be paid as franchise fees.

Below is a breakdown of the types of Public, Educational and Government Access services provided by the 207 respondents on behalf of their organizations: 92 provide Public, Educational and Government Access services 5 provide Public and Educational Access services 22 provide Public and Government Access services 20 provide Public Access services only 15 provide Educational and Government Access services 19 provide Educational Access services only 34 provide Government Access services only

1 The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix 3.

3 The 207 organizations provide PEG Access services for communities that range from 1,000 to 3,000,000 residents. Fifty-one of them reported that they have a PEG Access full-time equivalent staff of one person or less; 24 reported 10 or more.

A funding analysis of the 165 respondents who provided complete financial information for 2005 and 2010 was conducted to determine the extent to which such funding had changed during this period.2 Eighty of these 165 PEG Access service providers reported that the combined funding support they received from their local governments and cable operators decreased from 2005 to 2010 (the average decrease was 39.7%, equal to an annual reduction of about $205,000 per year, from an overall average of $515,937 in 2005 to $311,160 in 2010 -- see Appendix 1 for details).

REDUCTIONS IN IN-KIND SUPPORT

Survey respondents were asked if their organization received any in-kind services or materials from their cable operator(s), free of charge, for PEG Access purposes during the past five years. Respondents were also asked to describe any changes in the provision of such services and materials to their organizations since 2005. Over 100 respondents indicated that they had received in-kind services and materials from their cable operators, but about 20% of them stated that in-kind resources, including the types of materials and services listed below, had been discontinued or cut back since 2005:

x Studio/production facilities and equipment x Transmission connections between PEG Access facilities and the cable operator x Technical support x Free cable service drops to PEG Access facilities and public buildings x Promotional support for PEG Access (e.g., program listings, advertising, bill inserts) x Institutional Network facilities and related services x Channel relocation services

2 To ensure that this analysis was conducted in an equitable manner, the funding amounts reported by these 165 PEG Access Centers for 2005 were converted to 2010 dollars, by adjusting them in accordance with the 2.2% annualized inflation rate from 2005-2010 as determined by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

4 Survey respondents were asked to indicate the reasons for the reported reductions in funding or in-kind services and materials to their organizations from the local government or cable operator since 2005. The primary reasons cited by the respondents for these reductions were: (1) the local franchising government made a decision to cut/divert PEG Access funding; (2) state franchising laws resulted in reductions; and (3) recent local cable franchise renewals resulted in reductions in funding and/or support of PEG Access.

THREATS IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS

Respondents from 159 communities indicated that their organization anticipates reductions or elimination of PEG Access funding, in-kind services and materials, and/or channels during the next three years, for the following primary reasons (NOTE: these respondents were permitted to indicate more than one reason): Decisions by the local government (57%) State franchising law provisions (49%) Local cable franchise renewal (28%)

PEG ACCESS CENTER CLOSURES & MAJOR FUNDING CUTBACKS SINCE 2005

After conducting a review of newspaper and on-line news reports, information posted on websites, emails posted to listserves of PEG Access organizations, and direct reports from community media leaders throughout the United States, we can confirm that PEG Access Centers which had previously served at least 100 communities have been closed since the onset of state cable franchising laws in 2005. (See a detailed list in Appendix 2.) These closures have disproportionately impacted Public Access Centers: 93 were Public Access closures, 1 was Public and Educational, 1 was Public and Government, and five were Public, Educational and Government.

Also according to newspaper and on-line reports, a number of Public Access Centers in large American cities -- including Denver, San Francisco, Tucson, Seattle, Tampa and Atlanta -- have been affected by severe funding cutbacks. Closures and funding cuts in major urban

5 centers can disproportionately affect minority communities relying on the alternative communications opportunities provided by Public Access Centers. In The Future of Media proceeding before the FCC, Laura R. Linder and Gary Kenton cite diversity as a “distinguishing principle of PEG Access,” noting among other findings that, “In Tampa Bay, Florida, 70% of content providers/community producers at Tampa Bay Community Network (TBCN) belong to minority groups and range in age from teenagers to seniors.”3

HIGHEST POTENTIAL FOR PEG ACCESS CENTER CLOSURES IN NEAR FUTURE

The 2008 state franchising law in Wisconsin stated that PEG Access funding and other support (if required by local cable franchises) would be discontinued in January, 2011. PEG Access funding-related provisions of state cable franchising laws in Ohio Florida and Georgia will take effect next year, which could have a devastating impact on hundreds of PEG Access Centers in those states. The laws in Ohio, Florida and Georgia require all cable service providers to match the PEG funding support amounts of the incumbent (per the terms of local franchises then in existence) -- until January 1, 2012 in Ohio and July 1, 2012 in Florida and Georgia. After that, the obligation is reduced to zero. State cable franchising laws in Iowa and Indiana also require matching PEG funding support by the cable service providers, but that obligation will end upon the natural expiration date of the existing local franchises.

Therefore, during the next 15 months, another wave of PEG Access Center closures could occur in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Indiana as a result of major funding cuts due to state franchising laws. Unlike several other states that adopted state franchising laws, none of these states included provisions in their laws that permit communities to require PEG Access funding support from their cable service providers to supplement franchise fees. As a result, funding support that the PEG Access Centers in these states had previously received from their cable service providers would cease, putting them at a high risk of closure as a direct result of state franchising laws.

3 ACD filing - Future of Media and Information Needs in a Digital Age before the FCC, GN Docket No. 10-25.

6 CONCLUSION

When the Cable Act was adopted in 1984, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives published a Report that included the Act’s rationale for Public, Educational and Government Access channels. The language stressed the particular importance of Public Access and how these channels serve the “fundamental goal of the First Amendment”:

One of the greatest challenges over the years in establishing communications policy has been assuring access to the electronic media by people other than the licensees or owners of those media. The development of cable television, with its abundance of channels, can provide the public and program providers the meaningful access that, up until now, has been difficult to obtain. A requirement of reasonable third-party access to cable systems will mean a wide diversity of information sources for the public -- the fundamental goal of the First Amendment -- without the need to regulate the content of programming provided over cable. Almost all recent franchise agreements provide for access by local governments, schools, and non-profit and community groups over so-called "PEG" (public, educational, and governmental) channels. Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker’s soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas. PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home, and by showing the public local government at work.4

The findings of this report reveal that since 2005, many PEG Access Centers -- especially Public Access operations -- have closed or endured severe cuts to their funding and in-kind resources. Hundreds more face similar cutbacks or may be forced to cease operations in the near future. Study findings show that this has occurred primarily as a result of new state franchising laws and/or decisions by local governments. Dozens of Public Access Centers that once served residents and community organizations in 14 states have closed or may face closure in the next three years.

Without question, the Cable Act’s goal of advancing the First Amendment through public participation in PEG Access is now in serious danger. Corrective regulatory and legislative actions are urgently needed to prevent further erosion of public participation in U.S. cable communications systems now and in the future.

4 House of Representatives Report 98-934 (August 1, 1984), Page 30

7 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

SURVEY RESPONDENTS REPORTING DECREASED FUNDING FROM 2005 TO 2010

2010 Funding from LFA 2005* Funding from LFA ORGANIZATION TYPE plus Cable Company plus Cable Company

Respondent 1 P, E & G $214,000 $217,415 Respondent 2 P, E & G $30,000 $33,448 Respondent 3 P, E & G $198,000 $218,530 Respondent 4 P, E & G $0 $88,806 Respondent 5 P, E & G $602,725 $674,543 Respondent 6 P, E & G $94,000 $137,139 Respondent 7 P, E & G $70,000 $97,000 Respondent 8 P, E & G $134,001 $167,823 Respondent 9 P, E & G $278,000 $460,473 Respondent 10 P, E & G $0 $390,232 Respondent 11 P, E & G $1,999,884 $2,553,813 Respondent 12 P, E & G $750,000 $752,590 Respondent 13 P, E & G $1,608,600 $1,745,341 Respondent 14 P, E & G $260,000 $278,737 Respondent 15 P, E & G $7,300 $7,805 Respondent 16 P, E & G $583,530 $650,572 Respondent 17 P, E & G $280,236 $354,054 Respondent 18 P, E & G $416,384 $841,867 Respondent 19 P, E & G $1,700,000 $1,756,043 Respondent 20 P, E & G $165,000 $262,013 Respondent 21 P, E & G $125,000 $139,368 Respondent 22 P, E & G $35,000 $39,023 Respondent 23 P, E & G $21,000 $27,874 Respondent 24 P, E & G $270,000 $301,036 Respondent 25 P, E & G $270,000 $334,484 Respondent 26 P, E & G $440,267 $445,787 Respondent 27 P, E & G $182,760 $184,604 Respondent 28 P, E & G $185,000 $333,815 Respondent 29 P, E & G $236,000 $295,461 Respondent 30 P, E & G $40,000 $89,196 Respondent 31 P, E & G $469,000 $472,738 Respondent 32 P & E $100,000 $111,495 Respondent 33 P & E $250,000 $618,796 Respondent 34 P & E $741,600 $842,900 Respondent 35 P & E $355,000 $398,036 Respondent 36 P & G $7,500 $8,362 Respondent 37 P & G $143,283 $165,054 Respondent 38 P & G $660,000 $1,103,798 Respondent 39 P & G $78,000 $83,621 Respondent 40 P & G $16,000 $30,683 Respondent 41 P & G $575,000 $653,392 Respondent 42 P & G $355,527 $370,363 Respondent 43 P & G $450,400 $715,796 Respondent 44 P & G $334,908 $339,273 Respondent 45 P & G $78,000 $176,162

* Figures reported for 2005 are adjusted for inflation -- shown in 2010 dollars. APPENDIX 1

SURVEY RESPONDENTS REPORTING DECREASED FUNDING FROM 2005 TO 2010

2010 Funding from LFA 2005* Funding from LFA ORGANIZATION TYPE plus Cable Company plus Cable Company

Respondent 46 P & G $107,000 $139,368 Respondent 47 P & G $704,000 $939,901 Respondent 48 P only $0 $6,690 Respondent 49 P only $300,000 $334,484 Respondent 50 P only $70,000 $156,093 Respondent 51 P only $300,000 $919,832 Respondent 52 P only $300,500 $655,244 Respondent 53 P only $200,000 $891,958 Respondent 54 P only $142,000 $158,323 Respondent 55 P only $568,211 $590,922 Respondent 56 E & G $296,000 $946,591 Respondent 57 E & G $71,000 $72,472 Respondent 58 E & G $18,000 $20,069 Respondent 59 E & G $163,000 $204,035 Respondent 60 E & G $109,000 $131,564 Respondent 61 E & G $250,000 $557,474 Respondent 62 E & G $36,000 $123,759 Respondent 63 E only $20,000 $22,299 Respondent 64 E only $210,000 $362,358 Respondent 65 E only $3,500 $7,805 Respondent 66 E only $144,000 $904,764 Respondent 67 E only $5,000 $5,575 Respondent 68 E only $0 $185,081 Respondent 69 G only $10,000 $11,149 Respondent 70 G only $300,000 $6,020,717 Respondent 71 G only $514,000 $613,221 Respondent 72 G only $213,548 $238,095 Respondent 73 G only $281,300 $406,510 Respondent 74 G only $143,010 $151,923 Respondent 75 G only $25,000 $26,759 Respondent 76 G only $1,930,000 $3,344,843 Respondent 77 G only $485,000 $501,726 Respondent 78 G only $1,146,318 $1,188,484 Respondent 79 G only $10,000 $458,243 Respondent 80 G only $6,500 $7,247

AVERAGES: $311,160 $515,937

AVERAGE $ DECREASE FROM 2005 TO 2010: $204,777

AVERAGE % DECREASE FROM 2005 TO 2010: 39.7%

* Figures reported for 2005 are adjusted for inflation -- shown in 2010 dollars. APPENDIX 2

PEG ACCESS CENTER CLOSURES SINCE 2005

TEXAS (state cable franchising law adopted in 2005) Time Warner Cable One Dallas [P] Sherman [P] San Antonio [P]

CALIFORNIA (state cable franchising law adopted in 2006) Charter Time Warner Time Warner Glendale [P] Avocado Heights [P] North Whittier [P] Long Beach [P] Baldwin Park [P] Ojai [P] Los Angeles [P] Bassett [P] Oxnard [P] Malibu [P] Buena Park [P] Placentia [P] Carlsbad [P] Puente Hills [P & E] Comcast Carson [P] Santa Ana [P] Alameda County [P] City of Industry [P] South Whittier [P] Albany [P] Compton [P] Stanton [P] Ashland [P] Costa Mesa [P] Tustin [P] Castro Valley [P] El Segundo [P] Valinda [P] Cherryland [P] Fountain Valley [P] Westminster [P] Fremont [P] Fullerton [P] El Cerrito [P] Garden Grove [P] Hayward [P] Gardena [P] Kensington [P] Hacienda Heights [P] Richmond [P] Hawthorne [P] San Leandro [P] Huntington Beach [P] San Lorenzo [P] Lawndale [P] San Pablo [P] La Puente [P] Newark [P] Los Alamitos [P] Union City [P] Los Angeles [P]

INDIANA (state cable franchising law adopted in 2006) Comcast Comcast Comcast Bristol [P] Michiana [P] Rochester [P] Elkhart [P] Middlebury [P] Roseland [P] Goshen [P] Mishawaka [P] South Bend [P] Granger [P] Muncie [P] Valparaiso [P & G] Hammond [P] Osceola [P] Wakarusa [P] Lafayette [P] Plymouth [P] West Lafayette [P] Merrillville [P] Portage [P]

P = Public Access, E = Educational Access, G = Government Access APPENDIX 2

PEG ACCESS CENTER CLOSURES SINCE 2005

MICHIGAN (state cable franchising law adopted in 2006) Comcast Comcast East Lansing [P] Holland [P] Edwardsburg [P] Lansing [P] Flint [P]

NEVADA (state cable franchising law adopted in 2007) Charter Reno [P, E & G] Sparks [P, E & G] Washoe County [P, E & G]

WISCONSIN (state cable franchising law adopted in 2007) Charter Time Warner Madison [P] West Allis [P] Wausau [P, E & G]

ILLINOIS (state cable franchising law adopted in 2007) Comcast Comcast Bloomingdale [P] Orland Park [P] Carol Stream [P] Palatine [P] Glendale Heights [P] Park Forest [P] Highland Park [P] Roselle [P] Itasca [P] Springfield [P] Medinah [P] Wood Dale [P] Niles [P]

IDAHO Windjammer Mountain Home [P]

MONTANA Bresnan Great Falls [P]

WASHINGTON Comcast Bainbridge Island [P, E & G]

P = Public Access, E = Educational Access, G = Government Access APPENDIX 3

ON-LINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

If you are the Executive Director or Manager of a community media organization that oversees the programming of one or more Public, Educational or Government (PEG) Access cable channel(s), please complete this survey about your organization and the funding and other resources it has received in recent years.

In the wake of increased news reports on closures and threats to PEG Access organizations and the channels they operate in communities throughout the United States, the Alliance for Communications Democracy (ACD) obtained a grant from the Benton Foundation to study the causes and extent of these closures and threats. This online survey is one of the activities associated with that study.

The ACD and the Benton Foundation -- long-time noncommercial allies in the effort to support and develop community media -- are very interested in the root causes of the recent closures and threats to PEG Access that have been reported recently. An important barometer of the current situation is factual information about the funding and related support to PEG Access organizations in recent years, and their perception of threats to that funding and related support in the near future.

If you have any questions about the items in the survey, you may contact the survey coordinator, Randy Van Dalsen (email: [email protected]; phone:916-441-6277).

At the conclusion of this study, the survey results will be provided to all participants, at no cost to them.

Please complete the survey, because at the end you can enroll for a drawing for a great prize! The names of TWO survey participants who complete the survey will be picked at random, AND EACH OF THEM WILL RECEIVE A BRAND NEW FLIP ULTRA HD CAMCORDER!

YOU MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED CONTACT INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS DRAWING.

PLEASE NOTE: THE DEADLINE TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011.

THANK YOU!

Page 1 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

1. Name of your Access programming organization:

2. Year that your Access programming organization was established:

3. Approximate number of residents in the cable franchise area served by your Access programming organization:

Please enter a whole number, with no commas or decimals:

4. Total number of current Full Time Equivalent ("FTE") staff employed by your Access programming organization, not including volunteers or unpaid interns, that work on PEG Access activities. (Calculate total FTE by assuming 40 hrs./wk. = 1.0 FTE; 20 hrs./wk. = 0.5 FTE; etc.):

Page 2 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

5. What type (or types) of local Access programming and related services does your organization provide? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]

 Public Access

 Educational Access

 Government Access

 Other (please describe below):

 

6. If one or more other organizations manage Public, Educational or Government Access programming and services for your cable franchise area, please provide the name(s) and email address(es) of the Executive Director or Manager for each organization. We will use this information to invite them to participate in this survey.

Public Access:

Educational Access:

Government Access:

Page 3 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

7. Please indicate the total number and types of Access channels currently managed by your organization: 0123456 or more Number of Public ("P") Access        channels: Number of Educational ("E") Access:       

Number of Government ("G") Access:        Number of combined P and E        channels: Number of combined P and G        channels: Number of combined E and G        channels: Number of combined P, E and G        channels: Number of Other* types of Access        channels:

* If you indicated "Other" types of Access channels, please describe those channels below: 



Page 4 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

8. FUNDING FROM YOUR LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITY/FRANCHISE FEES.

For this question, only include the portion of franchise fee payments that were made by your cable operator(s) and were subsequently delivered, either directly or indirectly, to your organization for PEG Access purposes. If your local franchising authority deposited franchise fees into its general fund, from which it allocated funds to your organization, please include the dollar amounts used by your organization for PEG Access purposes.

Do not include funding from your cable operator(s) that was in addition to franchise fees -- such as capital payments or other payments to support PEG Access -- and do not include in-kind services.

[NOTE: If your organization replaced a different organization that had provided similar PEG Access services in your community prior to 2006, please indicate the amount allocated to that organization from the local franchising authority/franchise fees in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year), if that information is available.]

Please provide dollar amounts with no commas, decimals or $ signs.

Funding from local franchising authority/franchise fees to your organization in 2010 (or 2009/2010 Fiscal Year):

Funding from local franchising authority/franchise fees to your organization in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year):

Page 5 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

9. FUNDING FROM YOUR CABLE OPERATOR(S).

For this question, please indicate the dollar amounts provided to your organization by your cable operator(s) for PEG Access purposes -- IN ADDITION TO FUNDING FROM YOUR LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITY/FRANCHISE FEES. Such funding may have been paid directly to your organization, or may have been paid by your cable operator (s) to your local franchising authority, which allocated a portion or all of those funds to your organization. Such funding may have been restricted to capital expenditures.

Please do NOT include the dollar value of “in-kind” services and materials that were provided to your organization, or any of your organization’s funding FROM YOUR LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITY/FRANCHISE FEES that you indicated in your answer to the previous question.

[NOTE: If your organization replaced a different organization that had provided similar PEG Access services in your community prior to 2006, please indicate the amount provided to that organization by the cable operator(s) in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year), if that information is available.]

Please provide dollar amounts with no commas, decimals or $ signs.

Funding from your cable operator(s) to your organization in 2010 (or 2009/2010 Fiscal Year):

Funding from your cable operator(s) to your organization in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year):

10. For this question, please indicate whether or not the dollar amounts you reported above that were provided by your cable operator(s) for PEG Access purposes -- IN ADDITION TO FUNDING FROM YOUR LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITY/FRANCHISE FEES -- were restricted to capital expenditures only: RESTRICTED NOT RESTRICTED 2010 (or 2009/2010 Fiscal Year)  

2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year)  

Page 6 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

11. TOTAL FUNDING FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION.

For this question, please indicate the TOTAL dollar amounts received by your organization for PEG Access purposes from ALL INCOME SOURCES. This would include the sum of the amounts previously indicated that your organization received from: (1) your local franchising authority/franchise fees, and (2) your cable operator(s), plus the amounts your organization received from any other sources (e.g., fundraising activities, production services, donations, dubbing fees, training services, etc.).

Please do NOT include the dollar value of “in-kind” services and materials that were provided to your organization.

[NOTE: If your organization replaced a different organization that had provided similar PEG Access services in your community prior to 2006, please indicate the total amount received by that organization in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year), if that information is available.]

Please provide dollar amounts with no commas, decimals or $ signs.

Total funding received by your organization in 2010 (or 2009/2010 Fiscal Year):

Total funding received by your organization in 2005 (or 2005/2006 Fiscal Year):

Page 7 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

12. “IN-KIND” SERVICES AND MATERIALS FROM YOUR CABLE OPERATOR(S).

During the past five years, has your organization received any in-kind services or materials from your cable operator(s), free of charge, for PEG Access purposes? For example, some cable operators provide Access studio/production facility space, an upstream connection between Access playback facilities and the company's headend, promotional support for Access (e.g., free advertising spots on satellite-delivered channels, free bill inserts), etc.

In the space provided below, please describe any in-kind services and materials currently received by your organization from your cable operator(s), and describe any changes in the provision of such services and materials to your organization since 2005. 



Page 8 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

13. REASONS FOR REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING OR “IN-KIND” SERVICES AND MATERIALS TO YOUR ORGANIZATION SINCE 2005.

If the funding allocations or in-kind services and materials to your organization from your local franchising authority or cable operator(s) for PEG Access purposes have been reduced since 2005, please check the applicable reason(s) for those reductions, and briefly describe the details in the space below:

 Recently renewed local cable franchise resulted in reductions of funding or in-kind services and materials to my organization

 State franchising law resulted in reductions of funding or in-kind services and materials to my organization

 Local franchising authority decided to cut or divert the funding of my organization

 Other reason(s)

Briefly describe the details regarding the reductions in funding or “in-kind” services and materials to your organization since 2005: 



Page 9 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

14. ANTICIPATED THREATS TO YOUR ORGANIZATION’S FUNDING, IN-KIND SERVICES, CHANNELS, OR EXISTENCE DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

If your organization anticipates serious threats to its funding, in-kind services and materials, channels, or even its existence during the next three years, please check the applicable reason(s) for those anticipated threats, and briefly describe the details in the space below:

 Recently renewed (or soon to be renewed) local cable franchise will or may likely result in the reduction or elimination of funding, in- kind services and materials, or channels to my organization

 State franchising law provisions (becoming effective soon) will or may result in the reduction or elimination of funding, services and materials, or channels to my organization

 Local franchising authority may reduce or eliminate funding to my organization

 Other reason(s)

Briefly describe the anticipated threats to your organization’s funding or existence during the next three years: 



Page 10 ACD Survey: Current Status of PEG Access Funding

15. Thank you very much for your participation in this important survey. Please provide the following information that will enable us to contact you if we have any follow-up questions regarding the information that you have included in your survey responses.

PLEASE NOTE: At the conclusion of this survey, your name will be included in a drawing for a chance to win one of two Flip Ultra HD camcorders.

YOU MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED CONTACT INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS DRAWING.

Thanks again – and GOOD LUCK!

Name:

Organization:

Phone Number:

Email address:

Page 11 APPENDIX 5 Declaration of Michael S. Wassenaar

I am Michael S. Wassenaar, Alliance for Community Media Public Policy Advocate. This declaration is submitted in support of the Petition to Deny applications in FCC Docket Number MB 14-90.

The Alliance for Community Media is a national nonprofit membership organization representing over 3,000 PEG access organizations and community media centers, and PEG programmers throughout the nation. Those PEG organizations and centers include more than 1.2 million volunteers and 250,000 community groups that provide PEG access television programming in local communities across the United States.

The factual assertions in the Petition to Deny of which official notice may not be taken are true to the best of my knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 16, 2014.

______Michael S. Wassenaar CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James N. Horwood, certify that today, September 16, 2014, I have served copies of this motion on the following parties and staff via email:

Jack Wengryniuk Vanessa Lemmé DIRECTV Industry Analysis Division 2260 E. Imperial Highway Media Bureau El Segundo, CA 092045 [email protected] [email protected]

William Wiltshire Brendan Holland Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP Industry Analysis Division 1200 Eighteenth Street, NW Media Bureau 12th Floor [email protected] Washington, DC 20036-2506 [email protected]

John J. O’Connor Christopher Sova AT&T Competition Policy Division 1120 Twentieth Street, NW Wireline Competition Bureau Suite 1000 [email protected] Washington, DC 20036 [email protected]

Maureen Jeffreys Daniel Ball Arnold & Porter LLP Spectrum and Competition Policy Division 555 Twelfth Street, NW Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Washington, DC 20004-1206 [email protected] [email protected]

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. Jim Bird [email protected] Office of General Counsel [email protected]

/s/ James N. Horwood James N. Horwood Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP

September 16, 2014