Could Giving Voters On-Demand Content Get Them Interested?

COULD GIVING VOTERS ON-DEMAND CONTENT GET THEM INTERESTED?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant@wsj.com]
[Commentary] Few would disagree that a more informed electorate is desirable. In a survey of eligible voters just before the 2000 election by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, 84% of respondents couldn't identify either the incumbent or the challenger in their U.S. congressional races. On-demand TV could fight this trend by airing debates and public meetings, such as city-council hearings. There also could be channels devoted to such simple but useful subjects as the voting records of elected officials. But will cable operators fulfill the political potential of on-demand? There is encouraging precedent here. The industry created the public-affairs network C-SPAN in the late 1970s in recognition of its civic responsibility. Some cable operators, however, let executives at the local level choose on-demand content, and they have little incentive to explore its political potential. Others feel they've met their obligations with the public-access channels they are required by law to make available. They also point to the minuscule viewership most of these public-access channels get, as well as the offensive content they occasionally contain, ranging from nudity to white supremacy. Cable companies can't legally prohibit content on certain access channels if it conforms to guidelines, which are pretty loose. It might be time to re-examine cable's public-access requirements in light of this new technology. The timing is perfect because Congress is in the midst of considering a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. The discussions in both the House and the Senate already have touched on the fees cable companies must contribute to public-access channels. Perhaps they could negotiate a trade-off of some public-access channels for more on-demand content. No one is suggesting public-access channels be eliminated. Some attract a decent audience and provide important services, giving a forum to underserved communities and offering educational shows. Also, public-access channels are available to practically all cable subscribers on analog tiers of programming, while only subscribers who pay extra for digital cable can get on-demand. But most cable companies plan to switch to all-digital systems. Operators and customers alike would see a big benefit from moving government and political content to on-demand. Operators would find more precious bandwidth to free up for high-definition content. Viewers would be better served by having, say, a city-council meeting available on-demand rather than on an analog channel. In addition to convenience, they could fast-forward through the pothole committee report to get to the matters that concern them. Unfortunately, a trade-off won't be easy. The Alliance for Community Media, a lobbying group for public access, opposes giving back bandwidth. Some elected officials also are wary of yet more visibility. C-SPAN cameras weren't allowed in the U.S. Senate until seven years after they started in the House. "You have people who say, 'I got elected without this,' " says Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chief executive. "They don't want to change."
COULD GIVING VOTERS ON-DEMAND CONTENT GET THEM INTERESTED?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Grant peter.grant@wsj.com]
[Commentary] Few would disagree that a more informed electorate is desirable. In a survey of eligible voters just before the 2000 election by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, 84% of respondents couldn't identify either the incumbent or the challenger in their U.S. congressional races. On-demand TV could fight this trend by airing debates and public meetings, such as city-council hearings. There also could be channels devoted to such simple but useful subjects as the voting records of elected officials. But will cable operators fulfill the political potential of on-demand? There is encouraging precedent here. The industry created the public-affairs network C-SPAN in the late 1970s in recognition of its civic responsibility. Some cable operators, however, let executives at the local level choose on-demand content, and they have little incentive to explore its political potential. Others feel they've met their obligations with the public-access channels they are required by law to make available. They also point to the minuscule viewership most of these public-access channels get, as well as the offensive content they occasionally contain, ranging from nudity to white supremacy. Cable companies can't legally prohibit content on certain access channels if it conforms to guidelines, which are pretty loose. It might be time to re-examine cable's public-access requirements in light of this new technology. The timing is perfect because Congress is in the midst of considering a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. The discussions in both the House and the Senate already have touched on the fees cable companies must contribute to public-access channels. Perhaps they could negotiate a trade-off of some public-access channels for more on-demand content. No one is suggesting public-access channels be eliminated. Some attract a decent audience and provide important services, giving a forum to underserved communities and offering educational shows. Also, public-access channels are available to practically all cable subscribers on analog tiers of programming, while only subscribers who pay extra for digital cable can get on-demand. But most cable companies plan to switch to all-digital systems. Operators and customers alike would see a big benefit from moving government and political content to on-demand. Operators would find more precious bandwidth to free up for high-definition content. Viewers would be better served by having, say, a city-council meeting available on-demand rather than on an analog channel. In addition to convenience, they could fast-forward through the pothole committee report to get to the matters that concern them. Unfortunately, a trade-off won't be easy. The Alliance for Community Media, a lobbying group for public access, opposes giving back bandwidth. Some elected officials also are wary of yet more visibility. C-SPAN cameras weren't allowed in the U.S. Senate until seven years after they started in the House. "You have people who say, 'I got elected without this,' " says Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chief executive. "They don't want to change."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114903389207066918.html?mod=todays_us_ma...
(requires subscription)