Q & A | Question Two – Operational Modifications

Study with intent to change the delivery of community media in CT

Discuss whether any modifications to the operations and funding of companies and organizations responsible for community access programming are needed and, if so, provide detailed descriptions of the suggested modifications.

Special Act 22-23 mandates a study be conducted by PURA | NONPROFIT COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION IN CT | 2nd Question to all participants

Who are the responsible parties? Actually, since 1995 the State of CT assumed primary responsibility for oversight, accountability, and determination of funding. Presumably, the ten cable companies and one IPTV provider remain responsible for outreach and day-to-day either directly as a Cable Access Provider (CAPS) or with some oversight of nonprofits designated as CAPs in their franchise territory.

The Transformation of SB278 into SA 22-23 | A Study Special Act 22-23 authorizes a community media study.

How we got here. What should be studied? How can we have beneficial outcomes?


  1. Update the format for annual reporting starting with i.e.removing out-of-date questions.
  2. Create a comprehensive list of community media resources with all 169 towns identified with corrected contact information. Routinely, update this list when annual reports are submitted.
  3. If the state is to continue in a key administrative role after this study, a data administration ombudsman position could be helpful with ongoing review of accountability & compliance of all parties and overall community mediation.
  4. Restore the burden of compliance to the corporations using public rights-of-way for-profit versus retaining proceedings that are of a David & Goliath nature
  5. Eliminate annual processes. Replace them with an infrastructure that is more reliable and predictable. A community population is more stable than a subscriber population. Create a population base rate. Once equitable rates are set, trigger an automatic annual increase base CPI with an option for objection by a set date. This could include a minimum capital fund per entity that does not need to be restricted by the PEGPETIA cycle. This would require legislative recommendations as part of this study.


  1. Treat community media as an asset rather than a liability. This could include outreach materials, awards programs, and paid internships.
  2. Upgrade Channel capacity to HD to maximize the investment in capital funds for technology already being spent at the local level.
  3. Support a minimum and maximum operational capacity by geography and population (not subscribers) to enable more equitable delivery of services vs. statewide consolidation.
  4. Incorporate community media in the migration of the cable business to broadband strategy


  1. Adopt policies that support predictable programming.
  2. Create program production options that do not require trained community members.
  3. Expand training to include storytelling, interview techniques, and short-form production.
  4. Create Video Annual Reports to reinforce the brand.
  5. Provide services to individuals who are not cable subscribers.
  6. Collaborate with other media makers (i.e. arts, humanities) for redistribution of their content.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *