The ACM SUCKS in my opinion!

They have done NOTHING to help us here on Long Island where the cable
carrier (Cablevision) has NOW gone to a lottery.
Since 1996 the ACM has done nothing (Locally) to help us here, where we
reach over 2 million people.

We have a local access center (within our area) that does not show our
programming BUT they can come into our area!


The ACM doesn't seem to have a problem that the NY State PSC that we deal
with is the Municipal Assistnace Section!
There is no public access advocate.

The ACM is a JOKE!

Now if I was a member of the ACM, would the ACM be taking credit for ALL the
hard work I have done?

The agenda of the ACM does not address SERIOUS PROBLEMS with public access
television access and administration NATIONWIDE.
You can change and write all the laws and rules YOU WANT, if they are not
adhered to or misinterpreted by Judges and courts does it matter?

In my opinion the places that provide services for the public and call
themselves PEG centers, get the help!

I would like to see a law that SPLITS PEG centers into  P and E/G centers.

The public has been duped, and screwed all along!
Has the ACM done anything regarding Public Television?
Yeah that group that confuses everyone with it's oxymoron name, that
generates MILLIONS every year.

The basics of Public Access Television has been lost and community media
SHOULD start with the public!


-r    www.PublicAccessMovement.org   www.TheTrainShow.com

EG programmers are ANOTHER problem that public access programmers
(individuals) have!

EG's usually leads to one or more of the following:

1: 'Give Backs' to the very government that HELPS fund them
2: Defending public access producers with a tongue in cheek attitude
3: When EG and P are present in ONE ORG, who is first? Do you help the
politician or the public 'loud mouth'? EG's usually favor themselves first!
4: Pressure from GOVT about programming from 'individuals'.
5: Govt control over access to the Public Access Channel, rules and regs
6: Corrupt Boards
7: Corrupt Management

In our state E is not used in many areas because our cable carrier
and other 'information providers' control the content that is delivered to
our schools by OTHER MEANS!

The last time I checked...
The New York State Board of Regents does not recognize E AT ALL!
As a matter of fact they recognize Public Television  {joke, joke), but not
Educational Access?

Sad but true.

-r

Columnist Questions Sirius Sub Count Methods
A column by THESTREET.COM's SCOTT MORITZ questions SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO's
subscriber count methodology, saying "not all those new SIRIUS subscribers
are actual people."

MORITZ says that SIRIUS, unlike XM, adds every car equipped with a
factory-installed satellite receiver as a subscriber whether the car has
sold or not. "(A) number of those freshly minted SIRIUS subscribers could
actually be CHRYSLER Concordes sitting on a dealer's lot somewhere," MORITZ
notes, adding that the difference in methods between XM and SIRIUS is
"disconcerting" considering that subscriber counts encourage investors to
"tune out the heavy costs and massive losses associated with the business."

SIRIUS says it counts the cars as subscribers because the auto makers have
already paid for the subscription costs before they sell the cars, and
SIRIUS CFO DAVE FREAR says that the policy, which represents less than 10%
of overall subscribers, is "a big yawn" to analysts. But LEGG MASON analyst
SEAN BUTSON notes that when a car owner doesn't opt to keep the subscription
after the one year free trial, he or she is not immediately dropped from the
overall subscriber count, sometimes remaining on the list as long as 17
months.

******************
TeckStuff Steve
www.teckstuff.com
******************

Rich,

Thanks for this message to Joe, below.  You put things very clearly and
accurately.  But, we have to keep on, keeping on, with whatever channels
there are, or things get worse.

Best wishes to Brett, Maureen and you.

Bob Goldberg


----- Original Message -----
From: <richardeinhorn@...>
To: "'Joe Lahr'" <jlahr@...>; <PEG-Access@yahoogroups.com>;
<publicaccess@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <suffolkpv@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:52 AM
Subject: [publicaccess] RE: [FORUM] NE Region: I can handle the Truth...


> Joe,
>
> While I think I deserve an award, there are many people that have no clue,
> Who has done what to help over the years here on Long Island.
>
> One of the largest Public Access Areas in the Northeast was taken over by
> the cable carrier CABLEVISION;
> with NEW rules.
>
> When the local govt's, muni's and courts rule AGAINST the public and the
ACM
> has done NOTHING to help what do you expect?
> The entire landscape has changed here on Long Island (after 8 years and 80
> shows, I gave up when they went to a LOTTERY system)
> A system that has been allowed by the local muni's, courts and PSC.
>
> Public Access TV has now entered the 'censored arena' and as such, changes
> the way I (and many others) look at it.
>
> How about AWARDS for those that have HINDERED and Ruined public access
> television?
> Why do I think you will get more entries?
>
> Here are my Rec's
>
> Cablevision
> 113 Towns, Villages and Hamlets on Long Island (except for Riverhead, NY)
> New York State Public Service Commission
> New York State Supreme Court
>
> Keep in mind that my 'tainted view' started when I found out that
> Cablevision was allowed to break NY State Rules in 1996!
>
> When it comes to the ACM and NE Region stuff they have done NOTHING to
help!
>
> When the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority was allowed to
enter
> and then won 1st place in a public access arena,
> Well, it was another eye-opener as to HOW THINGS REALLY WORK in our
society.
> ( and they were from out of the area too!)
>
> Big Corporate VS Lil PA Producer
> Beta VS VHS
>
> The award was given by PATC in Great Neck, NY which has the ONLY fully
> digital system on Long Island that serves ONLY 15,000 people,
> Compared to Millions on the rest of Long Island, can you say SCREWED?
>
> While the REST of Long Island still has poorly maintained analog
equipment,
> And when the public does not have 'access' to quality equipment
> it is very easy for the average person so TAINT the views on public access
> based on quality.
>
> Joe, Bottom line may be, the people that deserve these awards do not want
> them or need them.
> We know who we are and what we have done to help.
>
> -r
>
> Richard Einhorn
>
> www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
> Aboard' RFD-TV Satellite, Coast-to-Coast
>
> "Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Lahr [mailto:jlahr@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:09 PM
> To: access-forum@...;
> alliance-announce@...
> Subject: [FORUM] NE Region: I can handle the Truth...
>
> Go ahead lay it on me...criticizm, constructive or otherwise:  I NEED TO
> KNOW:  why has a VAST majority of you NOT nominated someone or some group
> for either the Northeast MENTOR award, the LEADERSHIP award, or the
> COMMUNITY IMPACT award... ??? These awards were intended to recogize the
> hard workers, the committed, the teachers, the doers... what happened?
>
> Is it apathy or over-estimation?  Where did we go wrong?
>
> What am I missing?  I can handle the truth!
>
> YOUR NOMINATION FORM IS ATTACHED>  spend 37 cents and make a difference.
>
> YOU have about 4 working days to get your entries in:
> http://videofestival.tripod.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Check out our web site for Public Access Information
> http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How do you think we can help it?



Please take this.

Toyota has advertising where two children are playing under the SUV trying to
get a ball.

Who was the smarter that let them(TOYOTA) broadcast this commercial???

I saw that on cablevision channel on NY.

How many children are deaths because commercials like this that shows them
stupidest and risky behaviors.
Parents try to care about children and teens but irresponsible “media makers”
kill our values.

This is just an example.


publicaccess@yahoogroups.com wrote:

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. The FCC's cable crackdown
From: jonathan@...


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:54:14 EDT
From: jonathan@...
Subject: The FCC's cable crackdown

Just passing this on...

- Jon



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/index.html

The FCC's cable crackdown
The indecency war is ready to heat up -- and Tony Soprano, Jon Stewart
and the "South Park" kids better watch their mouths.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
*By Michael Scherer*




Aug. 30, 2005 | A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen
Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to
"extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the
prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to
pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the
woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some
Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time
television.

The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority
opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to
"pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous.
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed
FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my
colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between
the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at
the time.


Though Martin lost the battle over horse extraction, he is now poised to
win the broader indecency war. During the long hot summer in Washington,
he has been quietly meeting with religious activists and industry
leaders to organize a push for new standards for broadcast, cable and
satellite television. At the same time, Martin's allies in the Senate
have been considering new laws that could increase broadcast indecency
fines, break up cable TV offerings to allow parents to cut off racy
channels, and -- most controversially -- give the FCC the power to fine
basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy Central's
"Daily Show," for crude and lewd content.


"On the surface, it may look like ... we are in a holding pattern," a
Senate Commerce Committee staffer tells Salon. "But there have been lots
of meetings on a staff level as well as meetings with interest groups
and with industry."

Privately, industry leaders are quaking in their Prada loafers. The
water cooler may no longer buzz over Janet Jackson's Super Bowl halftime
teat or Bono's expletive-laden Golden Globe speech, but executives still
see the coming fight to sanitize television of the crude, the pixelated
and the bleepable as an assault on their bottom line. "Everybody should
be frightened by the notion that this process could be hijacked by a
very few people," says Jim Dyke, a Republican who now leads TV Watch, a
group founded by Viacom (CBS, MTV, Comedy Central), General Electric
(NBC, Bravo) and News Corp. (Fox) to argue against new regulation. "They
are trying to make decisions about what our children can see."

In the coming weeks, observers expect Martin to act upon between 30 and
50 outstanding indecency complaints, the first step in clearing a
backlog of hundreds of allegedly inappropriate broadcasts on television
and radio. He has promised to remake the indecency process, speeding FCC
responses and establishing a clearer precedent of what constitutes
indecent programming. "The fact that we have not had any fines this year
really just means we are in the eye of the hurricane," says one former
FCC official, who has been following the situation. The storm first hit
in 2004, when the FCC, under then-chairman Michael Powell, proposed $3.7
million in fines, more than twice as much as all the fines issued in the
previous decade.

In the meantime, Martin, a former White House aide to President Bush,
has been meeting privately with evangelical activists to assure them of
his commitment to change the television landscape. The government does
not regulate shows distributed over cable or satellite television for
indecency. Similarly, there are no indecency limits on the content of
satellite radio, where shock-jock Howard Stern sought refuge and will
begin broadcasting next year. But in one session this summer, Martin
told activists that he is privately reaching out to industry leaders to
address racy content on basic cable and satellite television, says Rick
Schatz, the president of the National Coalition for the Protection of
Children and Families, a Christian ministry. "He said the free rein of
cable and satellite and satellite radio is not acceptable," says Schatz,
who sat in on the meeting. "He's committed to seeing something is done
during his tenure."

Martin has asked media companies to offer a new "family-friendly" tier
of cable programming, a package that would likely exclude channels like
MTV and Spike TV. "If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse
to offer parents more tools, basic indecency and profanity restrictions
may be a viable alternative," he said during a House hearing in February
2004. New government restrictions would require an act of Congress.

But Martin seems to have found an ally in the Senate, where Ted Stevens,
R-Alaska, recently became the chairman of the Commerce Committee. "We
put restrictions on over-the-air signals," Stevens said of network
broadcasts in March. "I think we can put restrictions on cable itself."
His staff has been reviewing new regulatory options, looking for ideas
that would survive a court challenge on First Amendment grounds. Though
no schedule has been put forward, several people following the issue
expect to see hearings scheduled later this fall.

Worried about the bottom line, the cable and satellite industry has
responded by launching a campaign to educate parents about available
technology, like the V-Chip, that can block certain channels from any
single television. The campaign has been opposed by a powerful coterie
of family advocacy groups and activists with close ties to major
evangelical ministries and the Bush White House. "It will be war," says
Schatz, of the coming battle over cable and satellite regulation. "There
will be tremendous grass-roots pressure brought to bear."

This summer, Martin hired one of the activists, Penny Nance, to work in
the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, a position
that will allow her to advise on indecency issues. Nance founded the
Kids First Coalition, a group that fights abortion, cloning and
indecency in the name of "pro-child, pro-family public policy." She has
long been one of the nation's leading anti-pornography crusaders,
testifying repeatedly before Congress. During the last presidential
campaign, she appeared on Fox News as a "suburban stay-at-home mom" to
say that women believe
President Bush will "protect our children."

In public talks, she describes herself as a "victim of pornography"
because she says a man who once tried to rape her watched porn. In
January, Nance signed, along with other activists, an open letter to
President Bush, complaining of a "huge indecency problem" on basic cable
and a growing indecency threat on satellite radio. "The FCC should be
providing leadership in addressing these problems, instead of siding
with the industry," the letter said.


Nance, who did not return calls from Salon, has been invited to speak to
a closed-door strategy meeting of anti-indecency groups that will be
hosted by Concerned Women for America on Sept. 13 in Washington. The
meeting is being organized by Phil Burress, the president of Citizens
for Community Values, a group tied to Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the
Family. Among other items, the group plans to discuss state or federal
legislation that would redefine as obscene any close-up shots of vaginal
intercourse or oral sex. If passed, and upheld by the courts, Burress
said he hopes the new laws, which have not yet been introduced, will
outlaw much of mainstream pornography, including programs delivered over
pay-per-view cable and satellite networks. "I disconnected my cable,"
Burress said. "It got so bad that you couldn't even watch a football game."

Many of the future indecency debates at the FCC are likely to focus on
whether racy shows, like the horse episode of "Keen Eddie," are
indecent, even if they don't show nudity or include dirty words. In
February, for instance, the Parents Television Council complained to the
FCC about the CBS crime hit "C.S.I." One episode featured an adult
murder victim who played out his sexual fantasies by dressing in diapers
and suckling a prostitute. In one scene, the murder victim receives an
enema laced with LSD and begins to play with his own feces. Then the
prostitute encourages him to jump off a balcony. He later dies,
apparently, by choking on his own blood.

Under the current rules, material is indecent if it is "offensive as
measured by contemporary community standards." But standards vary widely
from community to community, household to household. Family Research
Council legal director Patrick A. Trueman said he recently traveled to a
Marriott Hotel in Houston, where he said three separate cable stations
-- not pay-per-view stations -- were showing "hardcore pornography,"
which he described as "sex acts." He demanded that the hotel staff come
disable the channels. The staff told him one of the stations was
Showtime. "I don't have cable just for this reason," said Trueman, who
previously worked on obscenity cases in the Justice Department. "If I
had cable, I would not want my children viewing that."

If the activists have their way, Trueman's children will not be the only
Americans barred from watching sex -- explicit or implied -- on
television. For now, they have the political winds at their backs, and a
sympathetic captain at the helm of the FCC. Before taking his current
job, Martin served as a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and
later as a White House aide. His wife, Catherine J. Martin, worked for
Vice President Cheney until recently, when she took another job in the
White House to work for the president on policy and planning issues.

There is little doubt that Martin knows the political stakes of the
coming fight. In 2003, he shared his concerns over indecency in a letter
to the Parents Television Council, a group that has called for a boycott
of shows like the WB's "Everwood" because it features adults who
encourage teenage characters to use birth control and, in one case, have
an abortion. "Certainly broadcasters and cable operators have
significant First Amendment rights, but these rights are not without
boundaries," Martin wrote to the group. "They are limited by law. They
also should be limited by good taste."


*salon.com*







--


_www.stuffbygriff.com_ (http://www.stuffbygriff.com/)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


Check out our web site for Public Access Information
http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------





---------------------------------
  Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joe,

While I think I deserve an award, there are many people that have no clue,
Who has done what to help over the years here on Long Island.

One of the largest Public Access Areas in the Northeast was taken over by
the cable carrier CABLEVISION;
with NEW rules.

When the local govt's, muni's and courts rule AGAINST the public and the ACM
has done NOTHING to help what do you expect?
The entire landscape has changed here on Long Island (after 8 years and 80
shows, I gave up when they went to a LOTTERY system)
A system that has been allowed by the local muni's, courts and PSC.

Public Access TV has now entered the 'censored arena' and as such, changes
the way I (and many others) look at it.

How about AWARDS for those that have HINDERED and Ruined public access
television?
Why do I think you will get more entries?

Here are my Rec's

Cablevision
113 Towns, Villages and Hamlets on Long Island (except for Riverhead, NY)
New York State Public Service Commission
New York State Supreme Court

Keep in mind that my 'tainted view' started when I found out that
Cablevision was allowed to break NY State Rules in 1996!

When it comes to the ACM and NE Region stuff they have done NOTHING to help!

When the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority was allowed to enter
and then won 1st place in a public access arena,
Well, it was another eye-opener as to HOW THINGS REALLY WORK in our society.
( and they were from out of the area too!)

Big Corporate VS Lil PA Producer
Beta VS VHS

The award was given by PATC in Great Neck, NY which has the ONLY fully
digital system on Long Island that serves ONLY 15,000 people,
Compared to Millions on the rest of Long Island, can you say SCREWED?

While the REST of Long Island still has poorly maintained analog equipment,
And when the public does not have 'access' to quality equipment
it is very easy for the average person so TAINT the views on public access
based on quality.

Joe, Bottom line may be, the people that deserve these awards do not want
them or need them.
We know who we are and what we have done to help.

-r

Richard Einhorn

www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
Aboard' RFD-TV Satellite, Coast-to-Coast

"Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Lahr [mailto:jlahr@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:09 PM
To: access-forum@...;
alliance-announce@...
Subject: [FORUM] NE Region: I can handle the Truth...

Go ahead lay it on me...criticizm, constructive or otherwise:  I NEED TO
KNOW:  why has a VAST majority of you NOT nominated someone or some group
for either the Northeast MENTOR award, the LEADERSHIP award, or the
COMMUNITY IMPACT award... ??? These awards were intended to recogize the
hard workers, the committed, the teachers, the doers... what happened?

Is it apathy or over-estimation?  Where did we go wrong?

What am I missing?  I can handle the truth!

YOUR NOMINATION FORM IS ATTACHED>  spend 37 cents and make a difference.

YOU have about 4 working days to get your entries in:
http://videofestival.tripod.com

Just passing this on...

- Jon



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/index.html

The  FCC's cable crackdown
The indecency war is ready to heat up -- and Tony  Soprano, Jon Stewart
and the "South Park" kids better watch their  mouths.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
*By Michael  Scherer*


<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/email.html>

Aug.  30, 2005  |  A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy  "Keen
Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired  to
"extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural,"  the
prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering  to
pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera  the
woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead --  some
Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for  prime-time
television.

The Federal Communications Commission  disagreed. In the majority
opinion, the commission decided the sequence was  not intended to
"pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not  unanimous.
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since  appointed
FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite  my
colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance  between
the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote  at
the time.


Though Martin lost the battle over horse extraction,  he is now poised to
win the broader indecency war. During the long hot summer  in Washington,
he has been quietly meeting with religious activists and  industry
leaders to organize a push for new standards for broadcast, cable  and
satellite television. At the same time, Martin's allies in the  Senate
have been considering new laws that could increase broadcast  indecency
fines, break up cable TV offerings to allow parents to cut off  racy
channels, and -- most controversially -- give the FCC the power to  fine
basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy  Central's
"Daily Show," for crude and lewd content.


"On the  surface, it may look like ... we are in a holding pattern," a
Senate Commerce  Committee staffer tells Salon. "But there have been lots
of meetings on a  staff level as well as meetings with interest groups
and with  industry."

Privately, industry leaders are quaking in their Prada  loafers. The
water cooler may no longer buzz over Janet Jackson's Super Bowl  halftime
teat or Bono's expletive-laden Golden Globe speech, but executives  still
see the coming fight to sanitize television of the crude, the  pixelated
and the bleepable as an assault on their bottom line. "Everybody  should
be frightened by the notion that this process could be hijacked by  a
very few people," says Jim Dyke, a Republican who now leads TV Watch,  a
group founded by Viacom (CBS, MTV, Comedy Central), General  Electric
(NBC, Bravo) and News Corp. (Fox) to argue against new regulation.  "They
are trying to make decisions about what our children can  see."

In the coming weeks, observers expect Martin to act upon between 30  and
50 outstanding indecency complaints, the first step in clearing  a
backlog of hundreds of allegedly inappropriate broadcasts on  television
and radio. He has promised to remake the indecency process,  speeding FCC
responses and establishing a clearer precedent of what  constitutes
indecent programming. "The fact that we have not had any fines  this year
really just means we are in the eye of the hurricane," says one  former
FCC official, who has been following the situation. The storm first  hit
in 2004, when the FCC, under then-chairman Michael Powell, proposed  $3.7
million in fines, more than twice as much as all the fines issued in  the
previous decade.

In the meantime, Martin, a former White House  aide to President Bush,
has been meeting privately with evangelical activists  to assure them of
his commitment to change the television landscape. The  government does
not regulate shows distributed over cable or satellite  television for
indecency. Similarly, there are no indecency limits on the  content of
satellite radio, where shock-jock Howard Stern sought refuge and  will
begin broadcasting next year. But in one session this summer,  Martin
told activists that he is privately reaching out to industry leaders  to
address racy content on basic cable and satellite television, says  Rick
Schatz, the president of the National Coalition for the Protection  of
Children and Families, a Christian ministry. "He said the free rein  of
cable and satellite and satellite radio is not acceptable," says  Schatz,
who sat in on the meeting. "He's committed to seeing something is  done
during his tenure."

Martin has asked media companies to offer a  new "family-friendly" tier
of cable programming, a package that would likely  exclude channels like
MTV and Spike TV. "If cable and satellite operators  continue to refuse
to offer parents more tools, basic indecency and profanity  restrictions
may be a viable alternative," he said during a House hearing in  February
2004. New government restrictions would require an act of  Congress.

But Martin seems to have found an ally in the Senate, where Ted  Stevens,
R-Alaska, recently became the chairman of the Commerce Committee.  "We
put restrictions on over-the-air signals," Stevens said of  network
broadcasts in March. "I think we can put restrictions on cable  itself."
His staff has been reviewing new regulatory options, looking for  ideas
that would survive a court challenge on First Amendment grounds.  Though
no schedule has been put forward, several people following the  issue
expect to see hearings scheduled later this fall.

Worried about  the bottom line, the cable and satellite industry has
responded by launching  a campaign to educate parents about available
technology, like the V-Chip,  that can block certain channels from any
single television. The campaign has  been opposed by a powerful coterie
of family advocacy groups and activists  with close ties to major
evangelical ministries and the Bush White House. "It  will be war," says
Schatz, of the coming battle over cable and satellite  regulation. "There
will be tremendous grass-roots pressure brought to  bear."

This summer, Martin hired one of the activists, Penny Nance, to  work in
the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, a  position
that will allow her to advise on indecency issues. Nance founded  the
Kids First Coalition, a group that fights abortion, cloning  and
indecency in the name of "pro-child, pro-family public policy." She  has
long been one of the nation's leading anti-pornography  crusaders,
testifying repeatedly before Congress. During the last  presidential
campaign, she appeared on Fox News as a "suburban stay-at-home  mom" to
say that <http://mediamatters.org/items/200407200005> women  believe
President Bush will "protect our children."

In public talks,  she describes herself as a "victim of pornography"
because she says a man who  once tried to rape her watched porn. In
January, Nance signed, along with  other activists, an open letter to
President Bush, complaining of a "huge  indecency problem" on basic cable
and a growing indecency threat on satellite  radio. "The FCC should be
providing leadership in addressing these problems,  instead of siding
with the industry," the letter said.


Nance, who  did not return calls from Salon, has been invited to speak to
a closed-door  strategy meeting of anti-indecency groups that will be
hosted by Concerned  Women for America on Sept. 13 in Washington. The
meeting is being organized  by Phil Burress, the president of Citizens
for Community Values, a group tied  to Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the
Family. Among other items, the group plans  to discuss state or federal
legislation that would redefine as obscene any  close-up shots of vaginal
intercourse or oral sex. If passed, and upheld by  the courts, Burress
said he hopes the new laws, which have not yet been  introduced, will
outlaw much of mainstream pornography, including programs  delivered over
pay-per-view cable and satellite networks. "I disconnected my  cable,"
Burress said. "It got so bad that you couldn't even watch a football  game."

Many of the future indecency debates at the FCC are likely to  focus on
whether racy shows, like the horse episode of "Keen Eddie,"  are
indecent, even if they don't show nudity or include dirty words.  In
February, for instance, the Parents Television Council complained to  the
FCC about the CBS crime hit "C.S.I." One episode featured an  adult
murder victim who played out his sexual fantasies by dressing in  diapers
and suckling a prostitute. In one scene, the murder victim receives  an
enema laced with LSD and begins to play with his own feces. Then  the
prostitute encourages him to jump off a balcony. He later  dies,
apparently, by choking on his own blood.

Under the current  rules, material is indecent if it is "offensive as
measured by contemporary  community standards." But standards vary widely
from community to community,  household to household. Family Research
Council legal director Patrick A.  Trueman said he recently traveled to a
Marriott Hotel in Houston, where he  said three separate cable stations
-- not pay-per-view stations -- were  showing "hardcore pornography,"
which he described as "sex acts." He demanded  that the hotel staff come
disable the channels. The staff told him one of the  stations was
Showtime. "I don't have cable just for this reason," said  Trueman, who
previously worked on obscenity cases in the Justice Department.  "If I
had cable, I would not want my children viewing that."

If the  activists have their way, Trueman's children will not be the only
Americans  barred from watching sex -- explicit or implied -- on
television. For now,  they have the political winds at their backs, and a
sympathetic captain at  the helm of the FCC. Before taking his current
job, Martin served as a lawyer  for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and
later as a White House aide. His wife,  Catherine J. Martin, worked for
Vice President Cheney until recently, when  she took another job in the
White House to work for the president on policy  and planning issues.

There is little doubt that Martin knows the  political stakes of the
coming fight. In 2003, he shared his concerns over  indecency in a letter
to the Parents Television Council, a group that has  called for a boycott
of shows like the WB's "Everwood" because it features  adults who
encourage teenage characters to use birth control and, in one  case, have
an abortion. "Certainly broadcasters and cable operators  have
significant First Amendment rights, but these rights are not  without
boundaries," Martin wrote to the group. "They are limited by law.  They
also should be limited by good taste."


*salon.com*







--


_www.stuffbygriff.com_ (http://www.stuffbygriff.com/)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Evening Bridge - August 29, 2005
TOP STORY - As Hurricane Katrina took aim at the Gulf Coast, the Weather
Channel brought in a large audience. The network said its total day (5
a.m.-2 a.m.) household rating for Sunday was 1.71, according to available
metered market Nielsen data. The record highest total day rating ever
achieved by the Weather Channel occurred last year, on Sept. 13, the day
before Hurricane Ivan's landfall, when the network achieved a total day
rating of 1.9 households, representing 1.6 million homes.

Awards, We don't need no stinkin awards!

I lost interest in AWARDs and Competitions when the PATC of Great Neck
hosted the awards,
A public access competition and awards and 1st place in my competing
category
went to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority 'Transit,
Transit' against 'little richie einhorn public access producer'.

We had produced our series on a Video Toaster with VHS and they have
produced theirs on a AVID with Betacam.
We had a crew of 1 family, husband, wife and kid, and they had a crew of
3-10 and 'more professional' equipment.
They were given preferential treatment of time, we were discouraged.
Got the picture?
It left a very bad taste in my mouth for competitions.

This didn't prevent me from continuing in public access, but after 8.5 years
of struggling with
Cablevision, New York State Public Service Commission and seeing how the
courts 'don't support' us when they have the opportunity to do so,
I finally gave up!

The Muni's (on Long Island) don't support FREEDOM of SPEECH as evidenced by
their (112 Villages, Towns and Hamlets)
Allowing Cablevision to PICK time slots in a lottery fashion!

Lucky for us, [6 months later] we were picked up by a NATIONAL satellite
channel and now we can reach 27 Million people.

Too much time had to be spent politically and educationally (word) vs
production time and 'bill paying jobs'
to change the landscape for the better, but ultimately the Muni's and Cable
Operator won!

GOT Access, ONLY ON THE INTERNET! The Truly ONLY Open forum that supports
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Public Access is too tainted.

-richie   www.TheTrainShow.com


	 I recently accompanied my wife to one of her conferences
(Engineers and Managers) and at the end of the conference nearly
everyone received an award. They were simple certificates but they made
everyone very happy and feel appreciated.

	 I think we have always underappreciated our colleagues. We
should all be getting awards. In fact, I thought I might just take it on
myself to give an award to everyone who attends the conference in Boston
next year.

	 The awards we offer now are too narrowly focused to get the
numbers you wish to receive. What about the guys in Schenectady, NY, who
have been doing access for over 30 years with a fraction of the budget
most access centers have? How about Dave Fabiano in North Adams,MA, or
Tom Riley out in Lockport,NY, who both have been managing access centers
for nearly 25 years?  And there are countless more folks like them. They
are doing what Bob Dylan sings about "they keep on keepin' (access) on."

	 And what about all the folks who have served on the NE board for
25 years. Every one of them should get an award.

Anyway, I don't know how to remedy this except to suggest that we had
better start rewarding folks with awards before we ALL die (or retire.)

Garrett

Greater Northshire Access Television
PO Box 2168
Manchester Center, VT 05255
(802) 362-7070

"Got Access? Only on Cable."

IMHO, I BELIEVE RICHARD IS CORRECT.
YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING AWAYTHING
AWAY FROM AMERICANS AS LONG AS
YOU DO IT A LITTLE AT A TIME.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: richardeinhorn@...
   To: 'Jeff Garland' ; PEG-Access@yahoogroups.com ; publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
; access-forum@...
   Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 5:28 PM
   Subject: [publicaccess] RE: [FORUM] Time Warner arguements for not providing
additional PEG channel


   Time Warner, be careful what YOU ask for! You may just get it, and lose. :)

   Based on the document, They believe that a Public Access Channel is NOT the
   ONLY way to get information out to the public anymore.
   And the don't want to add ANOTHER public access channel to the system.

   As cable carriers SLOWLY erode the Public Access television landscape, local
   programming will become less of an asset to them,
   And then WHERE will they be?

   -richie


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Jeff Garland [mailto:digitaleye@...]
   Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:39 PM
   To: Alliance Forum
   Subject: [FORUM] Time Warner arguements for not providing additional PEG
   channel

   hope this proves useful to you in your attempts at additional channels:

   Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Decision
   and Order No. 320
   <http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/decisions_orders/reconsideration/catv
   _reconsideration_dno_320.pdf>   (1.3 meg PDF)

   Decision & Order No. 320
   <http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/decisions_orders/files/320.pdf>
   (1.2 meg PDF)

   jg




   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



   SPONSORED LINKS Tv show  Entertainment  Entertainment new york


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "publicaccess" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Time Warner, be careful what YOU ask for! You may just get it, and lose. :)

Based on the document, They believe that a Public Access Channel is NOT the
ONLY way to get information out to the public anymore.
And the don't want to add ANOTHER public access channel to the system.

As cable carriers SLOWLY erode the Public Access television landscape, local
programming will become less of an asset to them,
And then WHERE will they be?

-richie


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Garland [mailto:digitaleye@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:39 PM
To: Alliance Forum
Subject: [FORUM] Time Warner arguements for not providing additional PEG
channel

hope this proves useful to you in your attempts at additional channels:

Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order No. 320
<http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/decisions_orders/reconsideration/catv
_reconsideration_dno_320.pdf>   (1.3 meg PDF)

Decision & Order No. 320
<http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/catv/decisions_orders/files/320.pdf>
(1.2 meg PDF)

jg

My Apologies to Steven Burgoon and the list,
Steve says that I have taken his original comments and replied to them out
of context.
I didn't mean to make me him look foolish or tarnish his image.

I thought I was doing the right thing by making my points based on what was
said,
But somewhere I may have taken a wrong turn in the conversation?

My Apologies Steven.

Richard Einhorn www.PublicAccessMovement.org



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve,

First, please accept my apologies for being so opinionated, this was a BIG
THORN in my life,
And maybe some day, if you heard the whole story,
you would know WHY I am so opinionated about what Public Access should be
all about.

I just wanted to do a show on Model Railroading and Trains... July 1996

Then all the law breaking surfaced!

Just a few things: Our Muni's let Cablevision give our public access time to
the Archdiocese of Rockville Centre (The Church)
And denied time to the public telling them certain times were not available,
imagine 12pm Friday to 12 midnight Sunday being all programming from this
religious organization, in 1996 we made our Muni's aware of the law breaking
and I was accused of having my own financial interest because of my tv show.


That's just one, how about We were the first Public Access Show, to be seen
on a Saturday afternoon?
Until we came along the time was sold to Country Music Television.
The cable carrier had a financial interest to keep us off.

I think the discussion for you was based on a not-for-profit (or 3rd party)
entity running the channel,
Mine stems from the franchise that requires the cable carrier to run it.
You have a internal, how to run public access from the inside,
with (in my opinion) too many people to have to please,
When in our case, they just have to play the videos, and no one Has to be
pleased.

Most 3rd party administrators impose MORE rules then should be required for
public access television.

I just think based on what I have experienced and have heard from others
that 3rd parties running public access
leads to some form of control that was NOT intended in order to access the
public access channel.

I am not sure why YOU are having such a problem with discussing this and
both of us having different opinions.
That's part of public access in a way.

I could never hold a job administering public access television
UNLESS I was allowed to play everything that enters the 'submission stream'
and I [personally] agreed with ALL their rules!  Hey< I guess it could
happen. :)

Maybe your access center does things differently than the others I have
dealt with or heard about?

I can see by some quick googling that funding is an issue at access 26 and
it's things like that,
That come into play when deciding content etc.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with that. Trying to please a lot of people
is not easy,
You shouldn't HAVE to do it.

You said:
"If you had, then you should know that even IF the first amendment allows
for free speech, in the fine print it doesn't allow for all free speech."

Funny it's in fine print, is this another lawyer screwing the public?

-richie   www.PublicAccessMovement.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Burgoon [mailto:stevenburgoon@...]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:14 PM
To: richardeinhorn@...
Subject: RE: <PEG Access> RE: [FORUM] Previewing and Prior Restraint

Do me a favor...well two actually.

1. RE-READ my initial e-mail to you, and then ask yourself whether or
not I'm "trying to impose my system of rules" on other people. I am not
trying to do anything of the kind. All I said was that in "some communities"
there is a community standard and that sets the tone as to what is and isn't
acceptable. Have you ever held an EXEC DIR's position? How about Station
Manager? If you had, then you should know that even IF the first amendment
allows for free speach, in the fine print it doesn't allow for all free
speach. And if the community standards of decency aren't upheld, then
funding gets pulled. Which means if funding gets pulled you loose the voice
that you are apparently taking for granted by acting this way. I don't like
it any more than you do, but those are the facts. Sometimes you have to play
politics. I know...IT SUCKS! and in a perfect world we wouldn't have to. But
we ALL know this is FAR from a perfect world. I didn't come at you trying to
attack your belief structure or anything like that, rather I merely
presented you with the other side of the spectrum from yours. And you
attacked ME! So, that being said, I think in the future you might want to
put yourself in the oppositions shoes before you start throwing stones at
them.
2. Put me on your ignore list, because we are BOTH very passionate
about this subject and I don't want to end up  burning any kind of bridge
that I may need to cross in the future. Might be best that we "AGREE TO
DISAGREE" as you put it.

You said:
"Those who are unwilling or throw up their hands after say 8 years or so
didn't belong in PEG in the first place."

Say what you want, I have done MORE than MY share, and I know how effective
I was, VERY, VERY EFFECTIVE.
It's time for some others to Grab the Baton and run with it,
there are 2-3 other people going through the legal system to change it, or
at least try to.
Now it's their turn to change the landscape!

I have more accomplishments (regarding changing the landscape of
administration of public access and it's problems by Cablevision)
under my belt than ALL the public access producers COMBINED on Long Island.
(except Glendora)

I gave up after exhausting ALL my resources:
Muni's, Politicians, Cablevision, NY State PSC and then to watch the courts,
turn a deaf ear!

The difference between us is that I want a totally open system, and you want
to impose some rules!

Attack on your question ?, hey can't I say what I want here?
It's not really meant to be personal, but YOUR IDEAS I don't agree with!
So I guess that makes it personal, we have differences of opinion, can you
live with that?

I have no problem with you voicing your opinion, I just had to refute what
you said.
Perhaps I didn't say it tactfully, but I said what I want, the way I wanted,
like public access.

Can we agree to disagree?

-richie


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Burgoon [mailto:stevenburgoon@...]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 1:40 PM
To: richardeinhorn@...
Subject: RE: <PEG Access> RE: [FORUM] Previewing and Prior Restraint

Richard,

  I don't share your opinion about PEG dying a slow death. I think we need to
redouble our efforts to save it. Those who are unwilling or throw up their
hands after say 8 years or so didn't belong in PEG in the first place. I
didn't appreciate your attack on my question, for the record.

Sincerely,

Steven Burgoon

Doesn't the "community standard" set the bar in this case?
Yes it does, I think one Judge threw the book at some cable carrier telling
them...
'Since you as a cable carrier have sex for sale, why can't someone give it
away?'

So it has already become a 'community standard' since some (not all) are
interested in viewing it.

I also believe there are different standards between cable carriers and
broadcast.

Community producers have a right and responsibility to do what THEY want,
unencumbered!

Maybe YOU can kill more flys, but we aren't trying to kill anyone,
We don't NEED to attract MORE FLYS, we just want to be able to say what we
want, and say it our way.

I have been in public access until last year, for 8 years, and it has been
treated poorly throughout the US.

The venue for public access has always been threatened because it is suppose
to be so OPEN for the public,
When in reality it is STILL very controlled, it is slowly losing it's place
to the Internet and Web Video Streaming.
You don't need ANYONE's rules, permission, and don't have to deal with prior
restraint at all.

As far as I can see, PA is dead or dieing a slow death, and Muni's, PA
centers, budgets, rule making and their control is killing it slowly!

FYI, anytime YOU think that someone else should say their message 'your
way',
The flag goes up for me, and says... Let them say it their way, with their
words, it's their message.
Yes the message may be SAID better (in your opinion, and I may agree with
you from time to time)
But it is the individuals right to do it their way!

Actually you will kill more flys with vinegar! :)
Just teasing, cause I know what you meant!

I attracted many 'flys' with my television show about trains and attracted
so much attention to the public access channel here
(reaching 500,000 people) that the cable carrier kept changing the rules to
hurt us and others.

Since I was non-controversial (subject matter) show, no one could really
pick on us.

Cablevision refused to run a show that had phone numbers listed of local
'train clubs'
and then wrote me a letter documenting it as 'Train Stores'. They are one of
the worst offenders in the US.

Cable carriers don't make revenue on a PA channel and it only hurts them
when people are tuned to another voice and one that doesn't generate revenue
directly to them!

-r



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Burgoon [mailto:stevenburgoon@...]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:56 AM
To: richardeinhorn@...
Subject: RE: <PEG Access> RE: [FORUM] Previewing and Prior Restraint

Dear Richard,

  I just read your posting, and I have a question. How would a station
prevent loss of funding, if they allowed anyone to say anything they wanted?
Doesn't the "community standard" set the bar in this case? I am not trying
to argue with you. I've been in access for about 5 years now, and I've seen
both sides of the argument. Just wanted to see what you had to say. Doesn't
airing the program at 3am sort of limit the amount of people who will see
it, thus making the persons point moot? My personal opinion is that
community producers should take more responsability and self edit themselves
when they feel the need to sink to shocking footage to make a point. You can
kill more flys with honey than vinegar.

Sincerely,

Steven Burgoon

"the object is to keep obscene
	 >> material, hate speech,! racial slurs, etc. off your station"

Guess what, hate speech and racial slurs ARE allowed, a court will decide
what is Obscene or Indecent,
A public access administrator should NOT be deciding this...
If you are trying to keep something OFF your station,
then YOU should realize you are exercising editorial control, and that is
NEVER allowed on PA!


Public Access is NOTHING like a telephone conversation or system,
But you can liken it to radio, except the FCC regulates content and
technically doesn't regulate PA content!
Satellite Radio is probably more like it, they can do anything they want!
(Me thinks)

Previewing for what reason? That only leads to censorship.
Public Access is based on the 'soap box' in a public forum.
You can say what you want, THEN someone can try to come after you, NOT
Before!

You are NOT allowed to prevent public speaking FIRST, Before you have heard
what the person wants to say!
Anytime someone wants to PREVIEW a show for content, it says that they want
to decide if the show is OK,
But it is NOT up to them to decide, that's what public access television is
SUPPOSE to be.
Many PA Centers hide behind a responsibility to the public they serve and
funding issues,
Simply put, you cannot or should not prevent public access shows from
showing at least once and then
Based on a complaint, you can do what you want.

Keep in mind that this does NOT mean that you can get always get away with
(the access center),
the PA producer can always take legal action.

Also First-Come First-Served has NEVER been defined LEGALLY as far as I
know,
Ask judge Spat, he has consistently ignored the problems that Cablevision
has imposed
By regulating public access and picking applications randomly.

When a Judge can't define it? Who Can?

I think there are multiple lawsuits against this judge, cablevision and
local munis.
I have given up after a 8 year battle with this CORPORATE PIG (Cablevision)
We have gotten a lot done, and now that Satellite TV has picked us up our
lives have changed dramatically...

Little things like: Every show is show on-time, excellent encoding, no
prior-restraint, no harassment,
And appreciation.

Reaching 27 Million People 4x a week seems to work well! :)

Cablevision is a law breaking company and the NYS PSC stands behind them
MOST of the time, instead of the public.
Can you say NY State Residents have been screwed! I can!
And there has never been a penalty imposed on Cablevision for any of their
illegal antics!

We now return you back to model railroading and The Train Show.

www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
Aboard' RFD-TV Satellite, Coast-to-Coast

"Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers

Richard Einhorn


-r


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Leonard [mailto:rollatv@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:51 PM
To: coll@...; Bob Joesting
Cc: William Botts; ACM Public List
Subject: Re: [FORUM] Previewing and Prior Restraint

I really struggle with relating a public access channel to the telephone, in
which a one-on-one or party call is individually dialed up, and not mass
televised. Also a telephone is privately funded in almost every spot in this
country, and the places where they use public right-of-way compensate those
particular entities for the use.

I STILL believe I could make a case that a public access channel would have
the right to preview the content. I don't know whether or not it's right for
the public access channel to preview the content, but I believe that they,
as stewards of the public dollar, have the right to pass such a regulation.

Steve

Ed Coll <coll@...> wrote:

	 Bob,

	 I agree compeletly. If access is "first come, non-discriminatory" as
is
	 mandated then "plausable denibility" is maintained. If you preview a

	 submission then you place yourself in the position making a decision

	 more properly made by the courts. Public Access much like a
telephone
	 company is a "carrier of content", and like a phone company should
not
	 poke nose into the content itself :-)

	 Bob Joesting wrote:

	 > At 02:07 AM 7/28/2005, William Botts wrote:
	 >
	 >> Surely you don't just slap a tape someone brings in your front
door
	 >> in the
	 >> deck and air it without any effort to know what is on it! Unless
you
	 >> know
	 >> first hand the producer's work, or can totally trust the
integrity of
	 >> the
	 >> entity supplying the program, the only way to KNOW what is on it
is to
	 >> PREVIEW it.
	 >
	 >
	 > I don't understand why you need to know what is on
	 > the tape. In any true public access facility I know
	 > of, it is the producer and/or submitter who is
	 > responsible for the content.
	 >
	 >> Arguements by CBS that they had no idea that Janet Jackson's
famous
	 >> "Wardrobe Malfunction" was to be a part of the Super Bowl
Halftime
	 >> fell on
	 >> deaf ears at the FCC, and with millions of outraged viewers who
expected
	 >> "family entertainment" from a Super Bowl telecast. The network
was
	 >> under
	 >> THEIR control, just as your channel is under YOUR control.
	 >
	 >
	 > There is a HUGE difference between a network programming
	 > a channel to get the maximum ad sales and a public access
	 > facility putting on what the public brings them. The
	 > network decides what content they will show and they are
	 > responsible! for the content that is shown. With public
	 > access the person who brings the tape is deciding what
	 > content they want shown and that person is responsible
	 > for that content.
	 >
	 >> The fact that
	 >> someone cuts you a check to air a piece of inappropriate material

	 >> does not
	 >> negate your responsibility to KNOW what is included in the
program.
	 >> Along
	 >> with control always comes responsibility!
	 >
	 >
	 > If "someone cuts you a check to air a piece of ... material"
	 > you must be writing about leased access not public access. In
	 > either case the person who brings the content should be
	 > responsible for it.
	 >
	 >> If you have a "no preview" policy, you are leaving yourself wide
open
	 >> for
	 >> all kinds of litigation from parents of "traumatized youngsters"
who
	 >> have to
	 >> explain the birds and the bees to young childr! en who see
something
	 >> totally
	 >> inappropriate on a tape that someone brings in and you air
without
	 >> determining its contnt.
	 >
	 >
	 > If you have a "no preview" policy for public access, you
	 > should have no legal liability for content. As long as you
	 > make the rules clear, you fairly punish anyone who violates
	 > them, and you follow the rules yourself, it would be very
	 > hard to claim you have any legal responsibility for content.
	 > On the other hand, if you have a policy of previewing tapes,
	 > or you sometimes preview tapes for content, whatever your
	 > official policy, it looks to me like you have accepted legal
	 > responsibility for everything that you show. I don't know
	 > of any public access facility that can afford that kind of
	 > legal exposure.
	 >
	 >> Keep in mind that in previewing programs, the object is to keep
obscene
	 >> material, hate speech,! racial slurs, etc. off your station. It
is not to
	 >> edit or exclude material based upon differing political,
religious or
	 >> personal preferences. The fact that you are a public access
channel
	 >> does not
	 >> mean you have to accept and blindly air programming by anyone who
walks
	 >> through your door.
	 >
	 >
	 > How do you know what "obscene material, hate speech, racial
	 > slurs, etc." are legal for you to ban? If you once ban a program
	 > and the producer takes you to court, can you survive? If you let
	 > a program on and someone sues, can you survive? I doubt that any
	 > of the standard insurance will cover you for liability if you are
	 > guessing what a future court might rule.
	 >
	 >


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Chuck,

MY APOLOGIES...
I thought there was only ONE Chuck in this world. :)

For some reason I thought YOU were someone else named CHUCK
that refused to run our Model Train Program on Public Access TV upstate NY.
He was PROTECTING his station, because of a song that was used on my TV
show.

Too many access centers HIDE behind their rules,
in essence practicing censorship.

Either I had too much caffeine or too much sun this morning,
But please accept my apologies, you are not him. :)

As a matter of FACT, aren't you the Long Island Chuck 'GOOD GUY' that
Has been cheering public access on!  Or are there THREE Chucks?

-richie



-----Original Message-----
From: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com [mailto:publicaccess@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:47 AM
To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: richardeinhorn
   To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com ; PEG-Access@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:14 AM
   Subject: RE: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


   Chuck,

   I don't know about you, but I have experienced CENSORSHIP when utilizing
   public access television.

   I'll never forget that you censored by television show about TRAINS. :(
   That makes YOU a censorer!


****************************************************************************
***********************
   HUH?????? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?  WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF
TRAINS.  ARE YOU CONFUSING OUR ORGANIZATION WITH ANOTHER???????

   WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????

****************************************************************************
***********************

   We don't live in CHINA, and I don't think ANY of us are planning to move
   their soon. :)

   I have NEVER experienced censorship of my information on the web.

   While the 'foundation' of public access television is suppose to be FREE
   SPEECH...
   It is FREE to those that can access it, and those that can see it.
   Since Cablevision changed their rules, and based on many other access
   centers RULES across the US,
   many people can't access the 'public access' system.

   The Internet has MORE uncensored material than ANY public access channel
in
   the US.

   PBS is a JOKE, so I don't see where they come into the picture at all.

   We should all make sure that the INTERNET stays uncensored.
   Google does NOT censor content searching.
   Let's make sure it stays that way!

   -richie

----- Original Message -----
   From: richardeinhorn
   To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com ; PEG-Access@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:14 AM
   Subject: RE: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


   Chuck,

   I don't know about you, but I have experienced CENSORSHIP when utilizing
   public access television.

   I'll never forget that you censored by television show about TRAINS. :(
   That makes YOU a censorer!

  
********************************************************************************\
*******************
   HUH?????? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?  WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF
TRAINS.  ARE YOU CONFUSING OUR ORGANIZATION WITH ANOTHER???????

   WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????
  
********************************************************************************\
*******************

   We don't live in CHINA, and I don't think ANY of us are planning to move
   their soon. :)

   I have NEVER experienced censorship of my information on the web.

   While the 'foundation' of public access television is suppose to be FREE
   SPEECH...
   It is FREE to those that can access it, and those that can see it.
   Since Cablevision changed their rules, and based on many other access
   centers RULES across the US,
   many people can't access the 'public access' system.

   The Internet has MORE uncensored material than ANY public access channel in
   the US.

   PBS is a JOKE, so I don't see where they come into the picture at all.

   We should all make sure that the INTERNET stays uncensored.
   Google does NOT censor content searching.
   Let's make sure it stays that way!

   -richie

   www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
   Aboard'

   "Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers


   -----Original Message-----
   From: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com [mailto:publicaccess@yahoogroups.com] On
   Behalf Of Chuck
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:52 AM
   To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future

   As a commercial venture it will be subjected
   to corporate subject and content censorship
   ....as is mostly all forms of American media - yes?
   As even PBS is.

   How do you see the concept of 'Public Access'
   fitting in to this proposed scenario you mention?
   .....Especially considering this brave new world
   of internet content filtering as we see being developed
   by American internet related corporations for the
   government of China?  ..... which will eventually be
   used here in this country to censor our internet access???

   CHUCK
     ----- Original Message -----
     From: richardeinhorn
     To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
     Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:14 AM
     Subject: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


     This will be the demise of cable carriers as we know it today.

     Google has some keen insight and knows that the future of video is VIA the
     web.
     They [Google] will empower anyone to deliver video via the web.
     They want to be on TOP and based on their past success they will be.

     Broadband services will be the KEY and Verizon has already launched Fiber
   in
     the northeast!
     It has been said 'Content is King' and Google is on it's way!

     -richie

     www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
     Aboard'

     "Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers

     Richard Einhorn


     -----Original Message-----
     From: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
     [mailto:Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
     charbax@...
     Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:31 AM
     To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
     Subject: Cnet article says launch within 2 months


     http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020451,39203615,00.htm





     Check out our web site for Public Access Information
     http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   --
     Yahoo! Groups Links

       a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

       b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

       c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



   ________________________________

   Yahoo! Groups Links


   *      To visit your group on the web, go to:
         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

   *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
         publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   <mailto:publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

   *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
   <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck,

I don't know about you, but I have experienced CENSORSHIP when utilizing
public access television.
I'll never forget that you censored by television show about TRAINS. :(
That makes YOU a censorer!

We don't live in CHINA, and I don't think ANY of us are planning to move
their soon. :)

I have NEVER experienced censorship of my information on the web.

While the 'foundation' of public access television is suppose to be FREE
SPEECH...
It is FREE to those that can access it, and those that can see it.
Since Cablevision changed their rules, and based on many other access
centers RULES across the US,
many people can't access the 'public access' system.

The Internet has MORE uncensored material than ANY public access channel in
the US.

PBS is a JOKE, so I don't see where they come into the picture at all.

We should all make sure that the INTERNET stays uncensored.
Google does NOT censor content searching.
Let's make sure it stays that way!

-richie

www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
Aboard'

"Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers


-----Original Message-----
From: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com [mailto:publicaccess@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:52 AM
To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future

As a commercial venture it will be subjected
to corporate subject and content censorship
....as is mostly all forms of American media - yes?
As even PBS is.

How do you see the concept of 'Public Access'
fitting in to this proposed scenario you mention?
.....Especially considering this brave new world
of internet content filtering as we see being developed
by American internet related corporations for the
government of China?  ..... which will eventually be
used here in this country to censor our internet access???

CHUCK
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: richardeinhorn
   To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:14 AM
   Subject: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


   This will be the demise of cable carriers as we know it today.

   Google has some keen insight and knows that the future of video is VIA the
   web.
   They [Google] will empower anyone to deliver video via the web.
   They want to be on TOP and based on their past success they will be.

   Broadband services will be the KEY and Verizon has already launched Fiber
in
   the northeast!
   It has been said 'Content is King' and Google is on it's way!

   -richie

   www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
   Aboard'

   "Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers

   Richard Einhorn


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   [mailto:Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
   charbax@...
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:31 AM
   To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   Subject: Cnet article says launch within 2 months


   http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020451,39203615,00.htm





   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Check out our web site for Public Access Information
http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



________________________________

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
	 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

As a commercial venture it will be subjected
to corporate subject and content censorship
....as is mostly all forms of American media - yes?
As even PBS is.

How do you see the concept of 'Public Access'
fitting in to this proposed scenario you mention?
.....Especially considering this brave new world
of internet content filtering as we see being developed
by American internet related corporations for the
government of China?  ..... which will eventually be
used here in this country to censor our internet access???

CHUCK
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: richardeinhorn
   To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:14 AM
   Subject: [publicaccess] Google Video is The Future


   This will be the demise of cable carriers as we know it today.

   Google has some keen insight and knows that the future of video is VIA the
   web.
   They [Google] will empower anyone to deliver video via the web.
   They want to be on TOP and based on their past success they will be.

   Broadband services will be the KEY and Verizon has already launched Fiber in
   the northeast!
   It has been said 'Content is King' and Google is on it's way!

   -richie

   www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
   Aboard'

   "Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers

   Richard Einhorn


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   [mailto:Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
   charbax@...
   Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:31 AM
   To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
   Subject: Cnet article says launch within 2 months


   http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020451,39203615,00.htm





   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This will be the demise of cable carriers as we know it today.

Google has some keen insight and knows that the future of video is VIA the
web.
They [Google] will empower anyone to deliver video via the web.
They want to be on TOP and based on their past success they will be.

Broadband services will be the KEY and Verizon has already launched Fiber in
the northeast!
It has been said 'Content is King' and Google is on it's way!

-richie

www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch us ONLINE anytime!  'All
Aboard'

"Honorary Member"  Long Island Live Steamers

Richard Einhorn


-----Original Message-----
From: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
charbax@...
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:31 AM
To: Google-Labs-Google-Video@googlegroups.com
Subject: Cnet article says launch within 2 months


http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020451,39203615,00.htm

When people have a choice, they should NOT forget how Cablevision has
mistreated us!
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-XMFW1113937467518.html

Wired In Washington
Slowing Down The Bells

By Drew Clark
(Editor's note: Drew Clark's 'Wired In Washington' appears every other
Tuesday in CongressDailyAM.)
Last December, SBC Communications and Verizon Communications were proudly
promoting their impending entry into pay television. These telecom titans
bragged about going head-to-head against media and cable giants such as
Comcast and Time Warner.
Six months later, SBC and Verizon are fuming about their still-pending entry
into the video marketplace. Business and technology issues haven't always
been smooth -- but both companies believe that the vast bulk of their
frustration results from cable operators such as Comcast, Cox Communications
and Cablevision.
For its part, the cable industry has been nakedly transparent about its
tactics of delay. At a meeting of the Cable Television Public Affairs
Association last month, cable industry executives assessed the competitive
from the regional Bell operating companies. It was very real, they said.
Since October, Verizon has strung super high speed fiber optic wires for
Internet access in more than 60 communities in 14 states, including Oyster
Bay, N.Y. -- in Cablevision's Long Island territory. They currently provide
broadband and Internet telephone service. But to sell video programs,
Verizon believes it must first get a franchise from every county or
municipality it wants to serve -- all 10,000 of them. And that plays right
into cable's decades-old ties to county administrators.
"At Cablevision, we are using our relationship with the local authority to
try to slow this down," said an unidentified questioner from the Long
Island-based cable operator, the country's sixth largest. "What else can we
do?"
Replied David Pugliese, vice president of product marketing and management
for Cox: "As we look at Verizon or SBC, we all need to do as many things to
throw sand into the gears of these RBOC machines to try to slow down their
video. Whether it is regulatory, whether it is marketing, whether it is
public affairs related, we have put together a multi-front plan to try to
attack everything they are doing."
Cox will soon face video competition from Verizon's fiber-to-the-home
service in Fairfax County, Va., where Cox holds the franchise. Pugliese said
that in laying its fiber wires, Verizon had cut Cox's cables "hundreds of
times. I am not confident that some of those cuts aren't unintentional."
Nor is this sentiment isolated within the cable industry. On a call with
Wall Street analysts one week later, Comcast Chief Executive Officer Brian
Roberts said Verizon and SBC were doing "fiber-to-the-rich." Roberts, who
heads up the nation's largest cable company, didn't hesitate to use the
"r-word" against his new competitors: "We've never redlined and never
discriminated."
That rhetoric has put the Bells over the edge. "Where we build, we will
offer services to all," said SBC Group President Forrest Miller, speaking at
the telecom industry's SuperComm trade show last week in Chicago. "Redlining
is a red herring."
Some analysts say that SBC set itself up for the charge when it circulated a
slide presentation showing its fiber service would be available to 90
percent of its "high-value" customers, 70 percent of "medium-value"
customers, and less than 5 percent in "low-value" neighborhoods.
But the political salience of the "redlining" epithet may be fading. Cable
calls it a level playing field -- but it's also a barely disguised form of
incumbent protection. "It's bizarre to ask us to file for a franchise under
the same terms as the first provider did as a monopoly," said Verizon Chief
Executive Officer Ivan Seidenberg, speaking at SuperComm about the
requirement that Bells agree to serve everyone before being allowed to serve
anyone.
The Bells scored an important victory in Washington last week when Senate
Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said he agreed with them on the
need to create something like a national franchise for video. And now the
teensy little change of policy on franchising has -- because of the way it
pits cable against Bell -- become the single biggest looming question
surrounding the rewrite of the Telecom Act of 1996.
SBC continues to take the position that its Internet-based TV system doesn't
require it to obtain cable franchises. Still, both SBC and Verizon seek
statewide and now national franchising authority. They may get support from
opponents of media consolidation, such as FCC Commissioner Jonathan
Adelstein, who wants to do everything possible "to encourage the deployment
of these services as quickly as we possible can" and to "streamline the
process" of securing video franchises.
Cable appears may be getting the message that obstructionism can't last
forever. Last week, National Cable and Telecommunications Association Chief
Executive Officer Kyle McSlarrow, in what a spokesman described as "a new
position and direction for cable," agreed to "sit down at a table with all
of the stakeholders and have a discussion about all the issues being
raised."
More likely, other big cable providers have been getting cold feet. They
didn't want to get themselves even more regulated by the county officials
with whom they've been getting cozy. At the public affairs forum last month,
William Jasso, vice president of No. 2 cable operator Time Warner Cable,
expressed this thought ever-so-tentatively, saying: "I don't believe we have
a strategy for what we want. Does the cable industry still want cable
franchises? I spend most of my time trying to get out of them."





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

1) The NYS Public Service Commission is a JOKE, but I am not laughing.

2) You have been misled, not surprising... PEG on Analog requires MORE
BANDWIDTH by the cable operator.
They can have 10 digital channels in the 'space' of ONE analog, that's what
they are NOT telling ya'.

3) The PSC has recognized that the residents of the 13 villages around the
Great Neck Area...
Have just as much right to use the Public Access Channel that THEY DON'T
GET,
because that particular area is served by Cablevision of Woodbury for 'other
channels' BUT NOT PEG.

The KEY words are 'Service Area'...

Good Luck, the PSC has always ruled (when it's questionable) on the cable
carriers side!
Oh and by the way... Ask them if they ARE the municipal assistance section?

There is NO public access advocate in NYS Government!

-richie



-----Original Message-----
From: Cris McConkey [mailto:cmcc@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 12:38 PM
To: access-forum@...
Subject: [FORUM] Need info on precedents for access spanning two cable
systems

I just returned from a Town of Enfield town board meeting.  (Enfield
is a mostly rural town near Ithaca, New York).

Tom Dohney from Time-Warner Ithaca was there along with Lee Haefele,
who owns Haefele Cable in Spencer, NY.  Both were invited by our
Tompkins County representative Peter Penniman who has been diligently
working on trying to get Tompkins County governmental access
programming delivered to Enfield.

At issue: an interconnection between Time Warner Cable to the Enfield
subsystem of Haefele cable to carry governmental access.

Enfield is the only town within Tompkins County that is entirely
outside of the Time-Warner service area.  An interconnection has been
talked about for years in regard to access programming, but never
fully implemented.  There is a location for a interconnection on
Sheffield Road and the simplest thing would seem to be an analog
notch filter so that only the PEG channels would go over to the
Enfield subsystem.  But that is prohibitively expensive, Tom Doheny
says, because of Time-Warner's contractual agreements with program
providers  --he mentioned Viacom-- who are concerned about leakage.

I said that technically, it didn't seem that big a deal and asked him
if it was really more of a proprietary issue than a technical issue.
He had to agree that it was a proprietary rather than a technical
issue.

Of course, there is no way to substantiate these claims.  There seems
no way to win these sorts of arguments. Corporate prerogatives and
proprietary concerns --the corporation's needs--trump everything
else.  Meanwhile, delivery of access programming to another system
with the county is not seen as a need by the corporation's
representative. Hardly surprising.

Other possibilities could be using the optical fiber data line Time
Warner is going to install to connect the Enfield elementary school
to the rest of the Ithaca school district.

Right now, the County is planning to go ahead with delivering tapes
of county board meetings to Haefele, who at present, doesn't have the
equipment to play back after business hours (though he is open to
exploring possibilities).

Regardless, Tompkins County board meetings are only a part of the
programming on governmental access.  We really need an entire feed.
That could be mpeg streamed, converted to optical data stream,
converted back to analog video.  Whatever.  As far as costs, these of
course are additional costs.  But they are costs that would be
incurred because Time Warner says that the simpler and cheaper option
--an analog connection at the Sheffield Road site-- in not an option
because of proprietary concerns.

Further discussion during the meeting of delivering content via the
internet really didn't lead anywhere.  It would be great were
Tompkins County to offer web streaming in addition to governmental
access on the cable, but it is no substitute as Tom Donney seemed to
suggest (with the spin that this way there are no franchise concerns).

I won't go on further so as to get to the point.

I need to know if there is precedent for a PEG access system to
operate over more than one cable company with separate franchise
areas.  If so, I'd like to learn something about how this was
accomplished.

Also, on another matter, I need the contact information for the New
York State Public Service Commission representatives who serves the
Ithaca, NY area.

--Cris McConkey
Trumansburg, NY

I have to admit I laughed when I read this...but the FCC, radio, and TV
stations are taking it seriously...
Steve

******************
TeckStuff Steve
www.teckstuff.com
******************

----Original Message Follows----
From: George Antunes

F-word costs TV guy a job

By TRACY CONNOR
NY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

May 20, 2005

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/311379p-266377c.html


TV reporter Arthur Chi'en was canned by WCBS/Ch. 2 yesterday after he
shouted the F-word at two meddlers who horned in on his live shot.

Chi'en was in the middle of a 6a.m. broadcast about MetroCard scammers when
two men sneaked up behind him with a sign promoting radio shock jocks Opie &
Anthony.

For a few moments, as the knuckleheads heckled him and gave the finger to
the camera, Chi'en kept his cool and continued talking.

But as soon as he finished his report, he spun around and shouted at the
intruders: "What the f--- is your problem, man?"

If he thought the WCBS control room had already cut to tape, he was wrong.
The expletive went out over the air.

"Sorry about that distraction before," Chi'en said when he returned.

The apology apparently wasn't enough for WCBS, especially when the Federal
Communications Commission is cracking down on obscenity.

"He's been terminated," station spokeswoman Audrey Pass said.

Chi'en, a former New York 1 reporter who joined WCBS in 2003, told the Daily
News he's sorry.

"I regret the entire thing and I apologize to those who were offended," he
said.

Meanwhile, fans of the Opie & Anthony show, who have mounted a campaign to
annoy television reporters, were boasting about the infantile stunt on the
deejays' Web site.

The potty-mouthed pair have a show on XM satellite radio, where they landed
after being bounced by WNEW-FM for a contest that enticed two listeners to
have sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral.

The way to fix this is to ADD more bandwidth! More Channels.
The requirement for a public access channel WAS based on a cable carrier
having 21 or more channels.
That's HOW old the BASIS of the rules are!

When there are hundreds of channels NOW, they should be giving us at least
10 of them!

Riverhead is doing the right thing IMO,
They were the ONLY town to STAND UP to Cablevision and refuse THEIR rules.
They said to Cablevision YOU administer this for US, and we decide the
rules! NOT YOU.

EVERY WHERE ELSE on Long Island the MUNI's said:
Do what you want, we don't care about the public we serve!

Maybe you are not aware that Cablevision has screwed ALL the public access
producers on Long Island,
And they have SHITTY equipment in MOST of their studios.

Just a tidbit, do you know that Woodbury has a portable Digital Camera FREE
to use. (Hidden Knowledge)

I wonder if the other PA Centers offer the SAME thing?
Also they are NOT accepting MINI DV [yet], and this would DEFINITELY HELP
QUALITY!

-richie einhorn   www.PublicAccessMovement.org




-----Original Message-----
From: tonyernst@... [mailto:tonyernst@...]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 8:51 AM
To: rksrc@...; richardeinhorn@...; vote_kucinich@...
Cc: Antje Katcher; Sigridbythesea2@...; Sigridbythesea2@...; Isabel
Sepulveda de Scanlon
Subject: Public Access TV - what is fair system?

LTV (local TV- www.ltveh.org) is in the Town of East Hampton ONLY.  They
have their own production facilities, program two channels (one is PA, the
Education and Government).  They also put on Democracy Now 2 or 3 times per
day via Free Speech TV satellite.  They are a model public access TV
operation.

In the Towns of Southampton, Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island the PA
TV is programmed by Cablevision from Riverhead.  It is on a first come firs
serve basis with no expiration date.. (this means if you got time in 1998
you have it in perpetuity).   As of yesterday the only times available for
new sponsors were between the hours of 2am and 4:30am.     I don't think
this is a fair system.  There are many programs which are on in Brookhaven
we would sponsor (including coverage of local SH peace events and Democracy
Now) if the 'freeze' on timeslots were broken.

I have been in contact with SH town board member Dennis Suskind who has
promised to look into why
the freeze is on..

It sounds like Riverhead Town's refusal to
approve the rules may be the reason.


----- Original Message -----
From: rksrc@...
Date: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:56 am
Subject: Public Access

> Tony, Rick forwarded your email to a public access group he is on
> and got the following response from RIchard Einhorn:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From  richardeinhorn@...
> Date  Thu, 19 May 2005 23:42:01 -0400
> To  'Vote for Kucinich' <vote_kucinich@...>, PEG-
> Access@yahoogroups.com, publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
> Subject  RE: Public Access TV in South Hampton NY
>
> I thought South Hampton has LTV, not Cablevision as their public
> accessadministrator?
>

> Having NEW applications every 3, 6 or 12 months... Seems to violate
> first-come first-served. There is NO rule that says first-come
> first-served can be terminated and restarted.
> So it seems from the info I got that SH may be doing the RIGHT THING.

Riverhead REFUSED Cablevision's rules, and grandfathered time slots forever
(from what I was told) Preserving FCFS!

> I was the first person to get Public Access time on the Hauppauge
> system (7
> years or so ago)
> Cablevision used to give the time to Telicare, Illegally.
> So when renewal time came, they reset the first-come thing.  ??
>
>
> There is something NEW going on in Long Island VERIZON, it's going
> to KICK
> Cablevision's ASS.
> The only problem lies in the franchise fee and whether VERIZON
> will offer a
> public access channel.
>
> But that may become a MOOT point, because with FIOS from Verizon,
> anyonewould be able to RECEIVE HS Video VIA Internet.
>
> The Gov't is asking for comments on Cable Media Concentration,
> and one of the paragraphs discuss BROADBAND television delivery,
> which is
> just HS Internet.
>
> The future is around the corner and Cablevision IS shaking in
> their BOOTS!
>
> The Town of Hempstead, the largest in the country is COURTING
> Verizon for
> their Fiber System 'right now'
> And Kate Murray the Supervisor seems to be breaking the mold and VERY
> INTERESTED in COMPETITION.
> I am sure Cablevision is trying to prevent this with things
> like... Don't
> you want NEWS12 and Meet the Leaders to cover you?
>
> Cablevision has been screwing with us since 1996, which is 10
> years NEXT
> year.
> Only in the last 2-3 years has the public learned how ARROGANT
> they are!
>
> Since they have such a poor record of 'doing the right thing' any
> muni can
> cancel them at anytime!
>
> Look towards the INTERNET and help keep it FREE and UNCENSORED.
>
>
> Cable Carriers will become history!
>
> We are NOW on Dish and Direct with our TV show reaching 21 million
> households,
> I was very fortunate that they wanted OUR PROGRAMMING, something
> Cablevisionrefused to work out with us.
> Ask anyone you ever run into on Long Island, did you ever see The
> TrainShow?
> If they have, they usually say they loved it!
>
> www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch our TV show online
> Anytime!
>
> "Honorary Members"  Long Island Live Steamers
>
> Richard Einhorn
> Holtsville, NY 11742
>
>
>

I thought South Hampton has LTV, not Cablevision as their public access
administrator?

Having NEW applications every 3, 6 or 12 months... Seems to violate
first-come first-served.
There is NO rule that says first-come first-served can be terminated and
restarted.
So it seems from the info I got that SH may be doing the RIGHT THING.
I was the first person to get Public Access time on the Hauppauge system (7
years or so ago)
Cablevision used to give the time to Telicare, Illegally.
So when renewal time came, they reset the first-come thing.  ??

Riverhead REFUSED Cablevision's rules, and grandfathered time slots forever
(from what I was told)
Preserving FCFS!

There is something NEW going on in Long Island VERIZON, it's going to KICK
Cablevision's ASS.
The only problem lies in the franchise fee and whether VERIZON will offer a
public access channel.

But that may become a MOOT point, because with FIOS from Verizon, anyone
would be able to RECEIVE HS Video VIA Internet.

The Gov't is asking for comments on Cable Media Concentration,
and one of the paragraphs discuss BROADBAND television delivery, which is
just HS Internet.

The future is around the corner and Cablevision IS shaking in their BOOTS!

The Town of Hempstead, the largest in the country is COURTING Verizon for
their Fiber System 'right now'
And Kate Murray the Supervisor seems to be breaking the mold and VERY
INTERESTED in COMPETITION.
I am sure Cablevision is trying to prevent this with things like... Don't
you want NEWS12 and Meet the Leaders to cover you?

Cablevision has been screwing with us since 1996, which is 10 years NEXT
year.
Only in the last 2-3 years has the public learned how ARROGANT they are!

Since they have such a poor record of 'doing the right thing' any muni can
cancel them at anytime!

Look towards the INTERNET and help keep it FREE and UNCENSORED.


Cable Carriers will become history!

We are NOW on Dish and Direct with our TV show reaching 21 million
households,
I was very fortunate that they wanted OUR PROGRAMMING, something Cablevision
refused to work out with us.
Ask anyone you ever run into on Long Island, did you ever see The Train
Show?
If they have, they usually say they loved it!

www.TheTrainShow.com  Producer/Director   Watch our TV show online Anytime!

"Honorary Members"  Long Island Live Steamers

Richard Einhorn
Holtsville, NY 11742


-----Original Message-----
From: Vote for Kucinich [mailto:vote_kucinich@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:18 PM
To: richardeinhorn@...
Subject: Fwd: Public Access TV:

Rich

A question about public access in South Hampton.

Perhaps you might have more imput.

Thanks,
Rick




--- rksrc@... wrote:

> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:54:54 -0400
> From: rksrc@...
> Subject: Fwd: Public Access TV:
> To: vote_kucinich@...
>
>
>
> Hi Rick, Tony seems about to lose it on this issue.
> Maybe your Public Access message board people can
> try to help him with Southampton Town.
> Love you, Karen
> > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:32:25 -0400
> From: tonyernst@...
> Subject: Fwd: Public Access TV:
> To: leoneill@..., Antje Katcher
> <katchant@...>,
>  Dan Steiger <meriger@...>, Karen Sackett
> <rksrc@...>,
>  Sigridbythesea2@..., Sigridbythesea2@...,
>  Kathryn Szoka <oneeyeopen@...>
>
> Does anyone have an idea what Suskind is talking
> about -
> " i act before i ask" ???
>
> He has not answered my questions yet.
>
> Isabel sent him my comment asking for people to find
> out what SH is doing re public access TV.  There are
> no available times (except 2-4:30am) for new
> programmers or sponsors. This has been in effect for
> more than a year.
> Other areas on LI can apply for time every six
> months.
> > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:24:32 -0400
> From: tonyernst@...
> Subject: Public Access TV:
> To: Isabel Sepulveda <iscanlon11@...>
> CC: DSuskind@...
>
> I was hoping that others who are concerned would
> want to know what the role of Southampton Town
> is in the 'freeze' on local public access on Ch. 20.
>
> I have repeatedly asked Bob Klement at Cablevision
> when this freeze would end. This morning he says he
> does not know and thinks that one of the Towns has
> to sign off on the contract (or the rules?) so we
> can
> start with the six month system they have elsewhere
> on
> the Island.
>
> Although i have been planning to talk to Dennis for
> some time I have many responsibilities which keep
> coming to the top of 'things to do'.
>
> I don't know where this is coming from:
>
> "Tony as he does some times acts before he
> asks---this is a good example--he just does not know
> and sometimes assumes the worst without asking"
>
> I assumed nothing.  I did not know why we have this
> problem and i thought that SH town should be able to
>
> fix it... they gave CableV. a contract and should
> have
> some influence over the PA rules.  Doesn't the
> federal
> law guarantee public access?  (I'm asking? although
> i have been told it does).
>
> peace!
>
>
>
>
>
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

If  you have a issue about Public Access Television, this is the
place
to be, if you want to discuss politics this is NOT the place, unless
the politics deal directly with muni's, cable operators etc.

I just put someone on moderation for sending a link that 'has
alternative views of 911 and the Pentagon airplane crash.'

While it does have a viewpoint that is NOT seen in mainstream media,
I don't want this to become a place or haven where people start
posting their views about anything.

Thank You,

-richie einhorn

Still paying?
Steve

******************
TeckStuff Steve
www.teckstuff.com
******************

----Original Message Follows----
From: George Antunes

Cablevision still paying for service

Harry Berkowitz
NY Newsday

May 12, 2005

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzhd4254926may12,0,2220025.story?coll=ny-busi\
ness-headlines


Cablevision has agreed to spend at least $100 million per year to fund the
21 high-definition channels that are all that's left of the failed Voom
satellite TV service.

The commitment was disclosed in a quarterly financial filing by Cablevision
Systems Corp., which shut the Voom service April 30 but decided to keep
operating the channels and pitching them for cable and satellite TV
providers to carry.

The spending minimum, which is capped at $500 million, is part of a 15-year
deal under which EchoStar Communications will offer the channels to its Dish
Network customers. EchoStar gets a 20-percent stake in those channels under
the deal, the filing disclosed.

If Cablevision reduces the number of HD channels, it can cut the spending to
as low as $38 million per year. If it falls short of the minimums, EchoStar
can drop the channels.

"It's an awful lot of money for Cablevision to continue to spend for these
networks," said Craig Moffett, an analyst at investment firm Sanford C.
Bernstein & Co.

Cablevision has said it invested about $1 billion in Voom, which attracted
only 48,000 customers. It estimates the shutdown will cost as much as an
additional $155 million, plus $45.8 million for settling liabilities.

Voom's sole satellite is being sold to EchoStar for $200 million.<<

Do you feel that this would
MAKE A GOOD SUBJECT
FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS SHOW??
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: griselled@...
   To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:49 AM
   Subject: Re: [publicaccess] Re: requesting federal assistance



   People that have the proper experience and knowledge about it may teach others
how we can handle and try to keep Public Access alive.
   All of you are welcome


   Chuck <ChuckMH@...> wrote:

   >THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD SUBJECT
   >FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS SHOW.  PERHAPS
   >A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WOULD BE
   >APPROPRIATE.......
   >  ----- Original Message -----
   >  From: DK
   >  To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
   >  Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:20 PM
   >  Subject: [publicaccess] Re: requesting federal assistance
   >
   >
   >
   >  Divide & Conquer it is!
   >
   >  I've learned the hard way, that when producers are more concerned with
getting their own projects aired and spend no time educating the viewing public,
that the viewing public will be left out. And if some "access issue" doesn't
concern the average viewer then why expect him/her to respond?
   >
   >  There is a national trend to eliminate public access and almost noone on
this list will disagree. But how many on this list provide programming to
"educate" the viewers on the value of the 1st Amendment and Free Speech?
   >
   >  When I was starting out in Hawaii you will discover that I NEVER thought to
make a program or two to educate the public on the value of the 5-6 channels
they make available for public access. However I found out that when you
discussed "complaints" with the other producers, they could always point to this
or that producer who had his show cancelled for exactly what I was going to
complain about. Was a clear and convincing threat to me.
   >
   >  When I came here to Kern County, in Calif and discovered the Board of
Supervisors held contracts with 8 different cable companies, each franchise
agreement requiring public access, I was overjoyed.
   >
   >  There was no facility for access nor any NPO organized to manage any.
Looked like a perfect opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond, become
locally important and leave something of value (an access facility) to the
community.
   >
   >  But let anyone try using those channels and it is entirely a different ball
game. They became so upset with my requests to be granted use of the channels
that in one meeting, with NO OPPOSITION, public access was wiped out of the
contracts.
   >
   >  When PBS was to air something about what was happening to Access up around
San Jose, you could not even SEE it on our PBS channel. And with no government
support, you can safely wager that this particular area of Calif will not see
any public access.
   >
   >  Lesson learned? Spend lots of time "educating" the viewers in those areas
that still have access. Heads are already rolling and producers are losing the
battle.
   >
   >
   >  ---------------------------------
   >  Discover Yahoo!
   >  Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online & more.  Check it out!
   >
   >  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >  Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   >  http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
   >
   >
   >
  
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   >  Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
   >    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/
   >
   >    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >    publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   >    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
   >
   >
   >
   >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   >http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
   >Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >


   Check out our web site for Public Access Information
   http://www.publicaccessmovement.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

People that have the proper experience and knowledge about it may teach others
how we can handle and try to keep Public Access alive.
All of you are welcome


Chuck <ChuckMH@...> wrote:

>THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD SUBJECT
>FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS SHOW.  PERHAPS
>A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WOULD BE
>APPROPRIATE.......
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: DK
>  To: publicaccess@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:20 PM
>  Subject: [publicaccess] Re: requesting federal assistance
>
>
>
>  Divide & Conquer it is!
>
>  I've learned the hard way, that when producers are more concerned with
getting their own projects aired and spend no time educating the viewing public,
that the viewing public will be left out. And if some "access issue" doesn't
concern the average viewer then why expect him/her to respond?
>
>  There is a national trend to eliminate public access and almost noone on this
list will disagree. But how many on this list provide programming to "educate"
the viewers on the value of the 1st Amendment and Free Speech?
>
>  When I was starting out in Hawaii you will discover that I NEVER thought to
make a program or two to educate the public on the value of the 5-6 channels
they make available for public access. However I found out that when you
discussed "complaints" with the other producers, they could always point to this
or that producer who had his show cancelled for exactly what I was going to
complain about. Was a clear and convincing threat to me.
>
>  When I came here to Kern County, in Calif and discovered the Board of
Supervisors held contracts with 8 different cable companies, each franchise
agreement requiring public access, I was overjoyed.
>
>  There was no facility for access nor any NPO organized to manage any. Looked
like a perfect opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond, become locally
important and leave something of value (an access facility) to the community.
>
>  But let anyone try using those channels and it is entirely a different ball
game. They became so upset with my requests to be granted use of the channels
that in one meeting, with NO OPPOSITION, public access was wiped out of the
contracts.  
>
>  When PBS was to air something about what was happening to Access up around
San Jose, you could not even SEE it on our PBS channel. And with no government
support, you can safely wager that this particular area of Calif will not see
any public access.
>
>  Lesson learned? Spend lots of time "educating" the viewers in those areas
that still have access. Heads are already rolling and producers are losing the
battle.
>
>              
>  ---------------------------------
>  Discover Yahoo!
>  Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online & more.  Check it out!
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  Check out our web site for Public Access Information
>  http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/publicaccess/
>      
>    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    publicaccess-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>      
>    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Check out our web site for Public Access Information
>http://www.publicaccessmovement.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>