Objection to Motion #1 Denial based on evidence presented within the Denial Document
Objection filed March 17, 2025 Docket #25-01-06 Annual Support Review. This filing was submitted by WPAA-TV Executive Director, the person most familiar with the details of Motion #1, I am responding on behalf of WPAA-TV. Motion #1 Filing asks sixteen procedural questions regarding alignment with CT Statutes that establish the post-franchise Community Media and the role of PURA.
OCC & PURA
The Denial Document states that OCC is a separate agency from the Authority, and any questions regarding its role should be addressed to OCC.
Fact: This communication and the letter requesting a motion went to PURA and the OCC.
The 10-03-02 decision does not reference any input from OCC regarding the distribution of consumer fees outside of the community where cable TV is available. Being listed as an intervenor does not equate to participation. Consumers were not represented in the 10-03-02 Docket, a docket directly related to the fees they pay. Our opinion remains that PURA is responsible for ensuring that all stakeholders are represented in PURA docket outcomes.
Funding Vs. Regulations
Motion #1 was filed approximately 8 weeks ago. The filing includes several questions. The questions align with requirements within General Statutes § 16-33 … In the denial document PURA suggests the Annual Support Review is about funding. However, all Annual Support Review Dockets include orders about filing Annual Compliance Reports. Therefore, it remains our opinion that these dockets, inclusive of 25 01-06, are about statutory compliance of all stakeholders. Subsequently, every question in Motion #1 is directly related to the Annual Support Review Process.
Once again, the denial response ignores the intent of motion #1 to identify what can be improved or corrected within the current statute. Before 2005, franchising and transfer dockets provided communities with the potential to hold cable providers accountable via Advisory Councils and renewal Need Assessments. In the denial document, and on its website, PURA suggests its only responsibility is funding regulation: ‘PURA continues to regulate funding…” Then what is the purpose of compliance reporting?
The rationale for requesting that stakeholder compliance reports be included as primary sources in the 22-06-26 study was to provide data that could inform the Authority’s recommendations. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that these primary sources informed the study outcomes. Not one outcome referenced data in reports and some contradicted the data. Guess what, use of collected public data was denied by the Authority. This particular 22-06-26 study denial establishes the Authority’s lack of oversight related to compliance reporting. IMO, It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the data and operations of community access facilities.
In Motion No. 7, Wallingford proposes seven modifications to the CAP interrogatories. The following are Wallingford’s proposed modifications with the Authority’s responses there to: 1. Expansion of the Authority’s October 6, 2022 Notice of Evidentiary Material (Notice) to include annual reports filed in Docket Nos. 18-01-32 and 22-10 02 for all entities and for-profit “Company Provider Reports” in Docket Nos. 19-02-15, 20-01-09 and 21-02-52. Id., p. 4.
The Authority declines to expand the Notice to include additional annual reports for administrative efficiency purposes and because not all community access providers (CAPS) consistently provide the information requested in the CAP Interrogatories in their respective annual reports. Additionally, in its responses to the CAP Interrogatories, a CAP may update the information provided in its most recent report as the CAP audits that information in preparing responses to the interrogatories.
This Denial Document provides insight into PURA’s lack of self-awareness
By example, in this denial, PURA infers a break with protocol to provide clarity in the section ‘Questions Regarding Website Topics. ’ It states, ‘… lists are maintained with regularity’. What does regularity mean? Certainly not annually. Today’s date is March 17, 2025, The website has a .pdf for Public Access Channels dated 10.18.2022, which is 29 months ago.
1. Among the questions that attempt to address PURA’s responsibility in maintaining the lists is: Does PURA update public lists with outcomes of the proceeding of transfer of responsibilities? There were transfers of responsibility dockets for Waterbury and Atlantic Broadband. PURA did not update the public lists with the outcomes. Websites, addresses, and telephone numbers in Annual Reports are not updated in the public lists. I tried several telephone numbers on the currently publicly posted list, including Cox. Many were out-of-service.
2. Does PURA provide public lists searchable by community (169 towns) to locate community media organizations? The simple answer is ‘no’. The inability of people to understand and find their community media resources is directly related to the current viability circumstances.
“There is also no easy way to search and find existing community TV channels and the affiliated cable
access providers and facilities.”No. 22‐06‐26 | PURA
Q. 1 of 4 | WALLINGFORD PUBLIC ACCESS ASSOCIATION, INC | S Huizenga | 11.08.22
WPAA-TV is found by people all over CT. An intern created a by-town search tool because we receive several calls a year from people seeking internships, producer opportunities, and more. We validate the search outcome before making the referral to the person’s community. If they call back because they fail to receive a response or timely support, we help them. As a consequence, we have award-winning productions from people who live in North Branford, Hamden, Madison, and Berlin.
How Do Matters of Procedural Integrity Get Addressed?
This denial reply document states “While the Authority is not in the practice of addressing questions posed to it in this fashion, … It goes further to state: If there is something particular that WPAA-TV identified as a problem with any of these documents, WPAA-TV should bring that specific issue to the Authority’s attention. This part of the denial reply deserves an emoji.
How does the public, or stakeholders, bring to light concerns about transparency, accuracy, and accountability? Is there a tip line or process outside of dockets? What ‘specifically’ is the process to bring specific issues to the Authority’s attention? We have used petitions, motions, and detailed answers to questions in a study. We have testified at hearings. Concerns like the ‘definition of capital expenses’ which do not align with FCC’s definition have been raised in numerous PEGPETIA dockets. We write cover letters with the submission of Annual Reports with information about the state of our industry.
Every channel has the same number of hours for play, but every organization administers those hours differently. It takes the same amount of time to process content with a duration of 15 seconds as one of several hours. And post-production of short videos can far exceed the support used for gavel-to-gavel of a government, including virtual meetings. We have the potential to be more relevant with museums, water authorities and government departments and people turning to video to inform their neighbors. However, completing this report is a reminder of …how antiquated how we measure and represent our work.
WPAA-TV Annual Community TV Report DOCKET NO. 21-02-52
In conclusion, our relevance is our existence.
Every question in Motion #1 has one or more related concerns. Many represent the community at large. Most tie back to the crippling of community media in 2005 statutory changes which did not put a fair and accountable system in place.
The Authority has repeatedly denied a legitimate request to make our Comcast Branford CAP subscriber payments public. The challenges inherent in complying with that request suggest something is broken. Similarly, ensuring all community access providers receive CPI increases has been denied twice. The Motion #1 questions were submitted on behalf of all nonprofits providing community media and all people of CT. Taking them seriously has been denied.
PURA is a critical stakeholder in the existence of community media. PURA’s role extends beyond the summary in the denial document because all stakeholders submit compliance reports to PURA.
It appears all our avenues with PURA have been DENIED. Is it time for the courts, or court of public opinion? That will be on the agenda item for the next WPAA-TV Board Meeting.