April 20, 2006

People Power, Channeled
There’s still time for public input on the city’s deal with cable giant Comcast

By JONATHAN LAWSON
Guest Writer

As Seattle draws closer to inking a new 10-year cable contract with Comcast, community advocates are looking to the City Council to help make the deal more responsive to public priorities. In a welcome move, the council appears interested in making some changes to the proposed franchise agreement that the mayor’s Office of Cable Communications negotiated with the cable company last year.

As is too often the case in this city, the details of the proposed franchise and side agreements were presented to the public as a fait accompli at the end of long, nonpublic negotiations. The mayor’s agreement would have cut the community TV channel SCAN’s budget by 24 percent; it would also have expanded prime-time arts programming on the Seattle Channel with a $5 million donation from the cable giant. Even with the council showing willingness to discuss and alter the mayor’s proposals, public input is still needed to remind it that citizens have strong opinions on Comcast, local cable service, and especially the local, noncommercial cable channels whose well-being is affected by these talks.

Two years ago, the city’s cable office conducted mail, phone, and Internet surveys to assess the public’s cable needs. The survey results showed strong support — about 75 percent — for community television and showed substantial interest in increasing channel capacity for public purposes, including local community-interest programming.

But these priorities are hardly reflected in the deal city negotiators cut with Comcast. Instead, the Mayor’s recommended funding plan would have slashed SCAN’s budget by $160,000. The mayor’s office is also strongly resistant to the idea of providing SCAN with another channel, as the public clearly wants.

The arguments for adding channel capacity to SCAN are fairly straightforward. Already, demand for programs on SCAN (both from producers who want to create shows and from audiences who want to see their favorite shows continue) far exceeds the number of programming slots available. Thus, SCAN is forced to assign slots through a ruthless lottery system. As programs cycle on and off the air in the span of months, producers are unable to build an audience, refine their on-air style, or develop funding strategies to support higher-quality programming. A second channel would alleviate this scarcity problem. It would also allow SCAN management to bundle together the channel’s best arts and public affairs programming, raising the station’s profile.

While most of us can agree that $5 million in funding for local arts TV programming is a great offer no matter what its source, the Seattle Channel’s “Arts Zone” side agreement has several deep flaws in how it is structured, and the City Council should address these with great care before accepting it. As numerous observers have pointed out, 12 hours of (Comcast-branded) new arts programming would necessarily displace 12 hours of other programming on the channel whose primary purpose is to enhance government accountability by showing public officials at work.

Some proponents of the Arts Zone agreement claim that they are representing a community desire to extend the Seattle Channel’s arts offerings; however, the survey results reported by the cable office demonstrate no such desire. On the contrary, survey respondents asked for more, not less, government programming: footage from public hearings and board and neighborhood meetings.

The Seattle Community Council Federation has proposed an amendment which would sensibly require the Seattle Channel to devote a certain number of hours per week to government accountability programming. The amendment would also allow ArtsZone programming to be aired on any channel rather than restricted to the Seattle Channel. Perhaps the city should institute a digital “Seattle Arts Channel.” Another possibility would be to add a single analog channel, which could carry both the new Arts Zone programming and serve as a “curated” second channel for SCAN. Such a hybrid channel would respond meaningfully to the public’s desire for more local government and community access programming and would provide strong encouragement, even competition, among SCAN’s independent producers to create professional-quality programs.

The time is right for local individuals and community groups to share concerns with their elected representatives. The City Council’s Energy and Technology Committee is expected to vote on franchise amendments on April 26; and the complete franchise will come before the full council in May. Tell councilmembers that Seattle cable viewers need SCAN to have an additional analog channel as well as a budget increase; and that new arts programming must not divert the Seattle Channel from its core mission of government accountability. Call councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, at (206)684-8807, Other councilmembers’ contact information can be found online at www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council. n