Hello, fans of government access and sunshine for all!
OK, perhaps it's time to get everyone on the same page with developments post-refranchise decision. (Looking for details of what that decision actually decided? Check out the DPUC documents online /link not yet active/.)
The Woodbridge Government Access TV Commission (hereafter, GATCom) invited representatives of the DPUC-designated Community Access Provider (you guessed it, hereafter CAP) to begin discussion January 23rd on how a schedule for G-TV might be worked out for the town of Woodbridge.
Through the magic of YouTube (who needs a TV for GovTV anyway!? not us, apparently!), here is episode one, in which GATCom opens negotiations with SoundView Community Media (SVCM):
Ready for part two of this meeting? Here 'tis:
Part three (are you hooked on YouTube yet? Better question; did you realize you would need a little over an hour to take in all this blog post has to offer today? Yeah, you can't stop now, can you?):
Part four (listen carefully to what may strike you as some misunderstanding of just what the I-Net can and can't do):
Part five (yes, we're getting near the end of our session now!):
Part six -- starting, here again, with some confusing statements. Listening to this again, I can't help thinking, "If we develop more and more programming that's town specific, won't we then need and want more and more town specific time in our schedule -- not less?" But watch for yourself and see what makes sense to you:
Here's part seven -- the last segment, it lasts just over two minutes:
Well, now isn't that almost like you were there? (Were you talking back to your computer screen at times? See, just like you were there!)
But now, what are your thoughts? Please use the "comments" link (in green text, below) to post your reaction, read about other people's thoughts and maybe we can begin a larger discussion about what comes next -- just remember that these comments and everything on this blog is public. It's as though you are in a meeting, and a recording is being made that anyone might later see! Kind of like the concept of GovTV to begin with, eh?
Yes, it's a little notion called transparency -- can you stand with your fellow citizens in the sunshine? If so, let's begin the discussion everyone!
6 comments:
Idea #1: If Woodbridge has the resources to post its own govt. program content on the Internet, how difficult would it be to have the little button "to contribute" to a hypothetical Friends of G-TV? And by difficult, I mean both legally and technologically. --pua
I am concerned that the president of the CAP in the company of his attorney made the suggestion that the First Selectman of Woodbridge be advised to appoint a Cable Advisory Council member that would be willing to do the bidding of the CAP on certain issues.
I am also conerend with the continual offering of High Tech this and Professional that by the CAP when in fact there is only $60,000 that is known of for dispursal into the system for the six towns and whomever else is eligible for these awards or grants or whatever they are to share what would become a fast dwindeling resource.
Making such promises as was heard
refelected expendituires that could exceed the total monies available for just this one town.
It was also apparent in the conversation that altough this CAP has had eight years as a PEG Access Provider that they seemed to be pulling ideas out of the air.
What was with the attorney constantly feeding info to the CAP president anyway?
And if they have been in bsuiness for eight years and have all this experience as they say "It has been our experience?" why don't they have any content?
The CAP offers sounded good from time to time but the main interest by the CAP was primarily focused on getting a schedule so they could get the 60 grand as it was called.
In the town of Fairfield I attended such same a meeting and it is my understanding that the town, when it received it's equipment package, that the gear was used and the equipment request made by the town was not fuly realized.
I only speak from an email that was sent out.
Also it should be determined who works for whom or the function of this CAP service. It does appaer from the perspective of the user they have been moving along quite well with the type of distribution they have employed in conjunction with with the technology that is required and the community' use and access to it.
It is probably a viable idea to opt out of the CAP program as it appaers cumbersome and intrusive
However your citizens will still be paying into Cablevision' funding or at least those subscribers that reamin with this cable service. If I had options on this I would contact other cable or media providers and perhaps negotiate a deal if they would asist in the E & G program for my community. After all if Cabelvision has lost control of the CAP and they are free to impose a none beneficial format of distribution upon your town I say get somebody who will.
I am sure there are other observations so I will wacth it again and get back to you.. Gerry
I want to make a correction:
about two thirds down the page in the last bit I sent. I sumerise an observation>
"It does appear fom the perespective of the user...(and to clarify)
"The user is the town.. and that the town is happy with their own efforts and that their work seemed to qualify for the "head-end" as a viable signal. That the community relys on them for that." Why should they change that for what is essentially is a transmission service...To Add to the CAP' brand?
Remember The CAP has provdied nothing or little to this community in particular in the past.
Hi, Pua. I'm responding to comments -- virtual two-way communication now!
To answer your question, I say, "not difficult" either technologically (sure of that!) or legally (though, of course, I'm not a lawyer; I just play one on YouTube!).
Yes, perhaps it's time to churn up the 501(c)3 creation machine and get "Friends of WGATV" in gear for real. Would you be the treasurer if I agreed to be the president of this venture?
As is often said, "If you want something done, better do it yourself!" (Isn't that always how we get ourselves involved in these things?)
What say you?
S.
disclaimer
I am considering some standard disclaimer notice to go on any WGATV programs--for town or regional play:
"The views expressed in the following/preceeding program are not those of WGATV or the Woodbridge GAT Commission. They are the views only of the people expressing them. Those with other opinions are free express them at public meetings in Woodbridge."
Someone who has seen some of this video has complained that no one at the meeting "challenged" Mr. Castelot when he asked for Woodbridge support of Sound View's request for an I-Net connection. Possibly they hoped for us to jump up, rip Mr. Castelot's tongue out & beat him over the head with it. Or at least an outright "no way." People listening carefully to Part 3 of the video should have noticed that the Commission chair refused to take a role in this matter & that the Woodbridge CAC representative did not support SVCM.
It should not be amazing that SVCM would put all their desires on the table. I doubt that the SVCM people, having noticed the copies of the proposed CGA bill to protect town-specific g-TV prerogatives attached to our agenda, will be amazed at the Woodbridge proposal. --pua
part 3, 03:45
Also please note when Mr. Castelot says SVCM will take on the cost of having the I-Net connection installed, Mr. Grotheer reminds him that SVCM money is subscriber money, some of which comes from Woodbridge people. Elsewhere there is discussion of what non-subscriber taxpayers are paying for, what subscribers do not get for their PEG fees. --pua
Post a Comment