This week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asked for input about PEG channels (public, educational and governmental access channels) in the states as PEG activists demanded that:
- Preferential spectrum be preserved for these channels and preferential menu placement of PEG channels be given; and,
- Video service providers be restricted from moving PEG channels from old analog technology to new digital delivery.
These channels often include (if you’re lucky) a school board or county council meeting. But they often carry obscene, offensive or wasteful
programming—such as the channel that shows a bird feeder 24 hours a day.
The short answer to the FCC’s question is "no." PEG content should not be considered sacred or treated preferentially compared to other video content.
The preferential placement of PEG channels on the video menu, as well as the very existence of the PEG channels themselves, is simply a relic of the previous local franchise regime. In those days communities exerted almost total control over the offerings and behavior of local video
franchisees (such as cable TV providers).
Consumers have spoken regarding PEG channels. In virtually every market, PEG channels are barely utilized by the community, and for the most part serve only the purposes of local elected officials, local video hobbyists and cranks. The abysmal viewership numbers and program offerings for PEG channels testify to the verdict of consumers: They don’t watch them.
And state legislatures have confirmed the opinion that these channels are a waste of bandwidth. States are increasingly reducing, or at least
imposing restrictions on, the channels as part of state-level video franchise streamlining legislation.
Regulatory policy should remain neutral, not regulating one competitor differently than the rest of the market—just as government policy should
not favor one communications technology over another.
Nor should government policy bias in favor of certain types of content over other types of content. Specifically, government policy should not
favor PEG-channel content over other types of content, especially that demonstrably favored by consumers.
In short, don’t “peg” consumers. Consumers ultimately pay for all video content, including PEG channels, and consumers have clearly indicated that they don't give their preference to PEG channels. Neither should the FCC force video providers to give PEG channels preferential treatment.