How many times have Inglewood residents had to rely on rumors or false information for news of public importance? How difficult has it been for city officials to get the word out on some significant issue in a timely manner? How often has City Council meetings dragged on during Public Hearings because most of the participants simply didn't know the facts concerning a hotly contested issue?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of the above is—too many times! That’s because the Media—and the LA Times in particular—have routinely ignored cities like Inglewood, unless they are reporting a major crime. As the print media continues to shrink or dissappear altogether, local residents find themselves swirling in an "information vacuum."

Today, a growing number of people have replaced their reliance on print media with depending on television to supply much needed information. While most citizens view television as their primary source for information, recent mergers have resulted in most networks and cable companies being owned and controlled by a handful of conglomerates that are driven almost exclusively by profit. What we see on television, therefore, is what maximizes profits — not, which benefits a community. And while the benign neglect of the LA Times can be viewed as fueling the problem and not the cure, a recent Times Editorial offered a pertinent solution:

“TV stations that barely cover big-city budget debates ignore smaller ones unless the treasurer leaves office in handcuffs. In a region this vast, expanded cable-access programming tailored to neighborhood concerns and transmitted to specific ZIP Codes — a technically feasible feat if funding and some help from cable operators can be found — could make a big difference. Such micro-channels would let local residents scrutinize how their taxes were spent and encourage them to care. Residents could watch the PTA meeting or city council debates on money for playgrounds. The possibilities are tantalizing and the potential payoff — more vigilant, involved residents — is big.”

BACKGROUND

Inglewood has granted cable franchise agreements dating back to Theta Cable Television on December 14, 1971. That was followed by a transfer agreement with Six Star Cablevision on November 14, 1978, T.C.I. Growth Inc., on February 2, 1982 and American Cable systems of California on May 20, 1986. Then the agreement transferred to Media One, which on November 9, 1999 transfer the agreement to AT&T.

A few years later AT&T was sold to Comcast. Then in 2006 Comcast left inglewood and was replaced by Times-Warner Cable, who continues to be the city's primary cable provider.

AB2987

Dark clouds arrived when AT&T wanted "back into the cable business" and joined Verizon to launch a legislative assault against the three-decades old Cable Franchise Laws. In California this effort took the shape of a reform bill labelled AB2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA).

Primarily, DIVCA trasnferred control of Cable Franchise Agreements from local cities to the California Utilities Commission, a state agency. However, DIVCA established that all cities were responsible for administration and implementation of certain provisions DIVCA, including the establishment, by ordinance for the financial support for E.G. channel facilities. However, all acroos the state the Public Access opportunities under DIVCA have been drastically downsized or totally illiminated.

At present, Federal Law does not mandate Public Access Channels, which are generally referred to as PEG channels. Historically, PEG channels were a right given to the franchising authority when granting an exclusive Franchise to a Cable Provider. AB2987 removes local contrtol over Franchise Agreements and placed authority with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). However, DIVCA calls for the continuation of PEG availability and requires Cable companies to provide cities with one percent (1%) of their annual gross revenue as a means of continuing PEG programming. Unfortunately, local municipalities must find measures of their own (generally, the Courts) to enforce DIVCA requirements from their Cable Providers.