Public Access funding is under threat due to an impending possible FCC rule change. If this rule passes, most or all of our funding could end. I am writing to urge you to send a comment opposing this to the FCC.
Below you will find correspondence that will serve as a template to contact the FCC in this regard, to support the continued funding for your community Public Access Television, Martha’s Vineyard Community Television.
P.S. We’re pretty sure that it’s not necessary to mention, but please be objective in your correspondence. We greatly appreciate your efforts.
Please copy, paste and include your name at the bottom of the letter. Then, please email to the **FCC Chairman, email@example.com.
Ajit Pai, Chairman Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner Mike.O’Rielly@fcc.gov
The Honorable Ajit V. Pai
Federal Communications Commission 455 12th Street, Southwest
Washington, DC, 20544
Dear Chairman Pai,
I am writing to implore you to maintain the current FCC regulations regarding Public Access Television and the Cable Providers obligation to fund them. It is imperative that local access channels continue to be funded and I oppose the current proposal included in the FCC’s September 25 Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket 05- 311.
The intent of the 1984 Cable Act was to provide communities with local access television – Public, Educational, and Government coverage for the community. PEG access on our island of Martha’s Vineyard includes covering 6 towns, Regional organizations and schools and is essential to our way of life here. MVTV is a hub for communication and community services.
By defining “franchise fee” in an overly broad fashion to include “in-kind” support, the FCC’s proposals will shift the fair balance between cable franchising authorities and cable operators and will force communities to choose between franchise fees and PEG channels, – something that was never the intent of the Act.
We appreciate your consideration and hope you will protect PEG channels in our community and others by choosing not to adopt many of the proposals in the “Further Notice” mentioned above.