BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AJR 39
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AJR 39 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended June 17, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-1 |(April 3, 2014) |SENATE: |26-5 |(June 19, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : Urges the United States (U.S.) Congress to amend a
specified federal law to allow states and their municipalities
to determine the best use of public, education, and government
(PEG) channel support.
The Senate amendments :
1)Highlight the importance to preserve PEG channels and funding
to ensure PEG-channel facilities continue to be available to
serve residents and to provide local opportunities for
skill-building and professional development for students and
workers.
2)Add a coauthor.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "In this modern age,
residents rely on information to be delivered via public,
educational and government channels. These PEG channels offer
residents an opportunity to become fully aware of what is taking
place in their local communities. Public-access channels allow
citizens to become better informed on local decisions by their
elected representatives, educational and cultural programming.
Currently, PEG funds are restricted to the use of capital
expenses, such as equipment, maintenance, upgrades, and sets,
but cannot be used for legitimate operational expenses such as
labor, administration or research. Assembly Joint Resolution
(AJR) 39 urges Congress to allow states and their municipalities
to determine the best use of public, educational and government
funds."
AJR 39
Page 2
1)Background: PEG channels are public access channels that
afford citizens with the opportunity to connect with their
communities, engage in civic activity, and obtain cultural
information. Although PEG channels are not mandated by
federal law, the law stipulates how PEG channel fees can be
used by local franchising authorities. Cable subscribers pay
5% of their bill as a franchise fee to the local government,
and local governments cannot impose additional costs beyond
that 5%. However, federal law does require a cable television
service provider to set aside channel capacity and provide
financial support for PEG access channels and restricts PEG
channel funds to capital expenses such as equipment,
maintenance, upgrades and studio staging. The federal
government wanted to ensure local governments were
contributing to the community as well, thus limiting the 1%
PEG fee to capital expenditures. This provision has not been
updated in federal law since 1984.
In 2006, the Legislature passed the Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act (DIVCA) with goals to promote rapid,
widespread competition in broadband and video markets and
accelerate the deployment of additional infrastructure in
California. DIVCA is implemented by the California Public
Utilities Commission and addresses video franchising and other
broadband related issues. DIVCA fundamentally changed video
franchising within California by transferring the authority
for issuing franchises for the provision of video services
from local entities to the State of California. Historically,
local entities, primarily cities, counties and special
districts issued cable television franchises. This required
cable operators to negotiate separate franchise agreements
with each locality where they wished to provide video service.
Some jurisdictions used PEG fees to open PEG access centers.
These centers provide community groups and individuals free
access to video production facilities and equipment.
According to the author, since 2007 approximately 51 PEG
access centers have closed. It is unknown how many of these
centers remain open.
Some may argue that at the time the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission began requiring cable operators to
provide local origination programming to connect communities,
mass communication was limited to local newspapers, public
AJR 39
Page 3
broadcasting, and cable television systems. Today,
individuals can communicate to their communities through
emerging broadband technologies like Twitter, YouTube, and
Facebook, enhancing the right to "freedom of speech" to new
levels. With the availability of these new and emerging
technologies, requiring cable companies to continue to provide
a channel for PEG programming may no longer be necessary.
2)A message to U.S. Congress: In light of the concerns raised
by local jurisdictions that have excessively low PEG channel
revenue streams and caused PEG centers to close their
operations, this resolution specifically calls on the U.S.
Congress to amend 47 U.S. Code Section 542:
a) Allow states and their municipalities to determine the
best use of PEG channel support.
b) Restore and protect funding for PEG operations.
c) To allow states and local governments the flexibility to
use PEG funding for legitimate expenses other than capitol
expenses.
d) Ensure PEG channels are transmitted without charge to
local governments.
This resolution urges the U.S. Congress to amend a specified
federal law to allow states and their municipalities to
determine the best use of PEG channel support. It highlights
the importance to preserve PEG channels and funding to ensure
PEG-channel facilities continue to be available to serve
residents and to provide local opportunities for
skill-building and professional development for students and
workers.
3)Support: The City of Whittier (City) writes in support of
this resolution. The City operates one PEG channel to show
City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, public
hearings, candidate forums, and other events important to the
community. According to the City, "Our residents are
typically very engaged in local issues and rely on this
information to develop their opinions so they can provide
educated public input to local governance. The Whittier City
Council unanimously supports the PEG channel as a very
effective means of making government activities transparent
AJR 39
Page 4
and open.
"AJR 39 is important to the City of Whittier as it will remove
use restrictions on PEG channel access fees and prevent video
providers from charging municipalities for transmission of PEG
channels. The measure will allow us the flexibility to use
PEG funding for operational expenses as well as capital
expenses."
The Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA) supports this
resolution. MTA administers video franchises and contracts
with a nonprofit organization to operate PEG access channels,
and operate and manage the Media Center for public, education
and government use to develop programming for the PEG.
According to MTA, "AJR 39 will provide solutions for critical
and immediate threats to PEG channels and facilities in
California and across the country by removing use restrictions
on PEG channel access fees, restoring PEG channel revenue
streams, and preventing video providers from charging
municipalities for the transmission of the PEG channels."
4)Opposition: The California Cable & Telecommunications
Association (CCTA) opposes this resolution noting that
pursuant both federal and state law, in most cases cable
operators provide 1% of their gross revenues in a franchise
area to support the capital costs associated with providing
PEG programming. CCTA argues that state law requires cable
and video companies to provide dedicated channels for PEG
programming. CCTA points out that "While federal law limits
the use of the PEG fee to exclusively support the capital
costs associated with PEG programming, cable operators also
pay local governments an additional 5% of their gross revenues
as a franchise fee that can be used without restriction to
cover general government expenses, including non-capital costs
of PEG."
Further, many local governments have the resources to contribute
their share to this partnership if they deem it a valuable
public service to their citizens. According to CCTA, "Given the
funding currently available to local governments that can be
used to pay for any costs associated with the provision of PEG,
there simply is no basis to assume that local governments cannot
now provide full funding support for PEG programming."
AJR 39
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : DaVina Flemings / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0004057