The DCCA is currently evaluating issues relating to PEG access in Hawaii. The goal is
to develop a statewide cable access plan which will set forth the State's policies towards
PEG access. That plan will guide the development and enhancement of services provided
by PEG Access Organizations.

This document is intended to initiate a public discussion concerning the State's current
policies towards PEG access, and possible changes in those policies. It identifies the
State's policies and practices regarding significant issues in PEG access, and identifies
some possible alternatives for change which have been suggested by various parties in
recent years. However, the list of issues and options is by no means final, and DCCA
welcomes the public's input on what other issues and options should be considered as
DCCA develops the plan.

DCCA is making this document available for public comment. The public is welcome to
comment specifically on the issues identified in this document, or more generally on their
views concerning PEG access in Hawaii. The public can comment in writing, by email,
or at public forums. These forums will be scheduled in each county and will be an
opportunity to provide input to the DCCA in finalizing its plan.

Email comments should be addressed to cabletv@dcca.hawaii.gov. Written comments
should be addressed to:

Cable Television Division
Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
State of Hawaii
1010 Richards Street, 2nd Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
9808) 586-2620

Once this document has been circulated and public comments reviewed, DCCA will
finalize the plan and make it available for general distribution.

 
 

The regulation of the cable television ("tv") industry is based on federal laws which
allow local regulation by a local franchising authority ("LFA"). The DCCA was
designated by the Hawaii State Legislature as the LFA for the State of Hawaii.

PEG access was started through the collaboration of the DCCA, the cable tv operators,
and the four Counties. A PEG access organization was established in each County as a
private, non-profit 501(C)(3) corporation to serve the unique requirements of that County.
Following are the PEG corporations:

Hawaii Na Leo ‘O Hawaii, Inc. (“Na Leo”)
Kauai Hoi'ke - Kauai Community Television, Inc. (“Hoike”)
Maui Akaku - Maui County Community Television, Inc. (“Akaku”)
Oahu ‘Olelo - The Corporation for Community Television (“’Olelo”)

The current distribution of franchise fees collected in each County is:

3% To the PEG access organization for the specific County where fees are collected
1% To the Hawaii Public Television Foundation (Public Television – PBS)
.64% To the DCCA to support the administration of the program
Note: DCCA receives 1% of standard service revenues, not gross revenues.
1% of standard service revenues are approximately .64% of gross revenues.

The PEG access organizations also receive channel capacity on the cable tv operators’
systems. All four PEGs have been authorized the use of five (5) channels ; to date, only
‘Olelo on the island of Oahu has all 5 channels cablecasting programming on a full time
basis. Additional channels can be requested by the PEGs, with supporting documentation.
These requests will be reviewed by the DCCA who will then enter into discussions with
the cable operator. Based on the results of this review process, DCCA will then make a
decision on the request for additional channel(s). The review criteria include items such
as current use of channels in production, percentage of first time versus re-run
programming, channel utilization by local producers, and other factors related to channel
demand.

Note: On Oahu, ‘Olelo has entered into a contract with the Hawaii Educational Network
Consortium (“HENC”) to be its Education Program Manager. HENC is a consortium
comprised of representatives from accredited educational institutions within Hawaii
including public and private lower and higher education schools such as the University of
Hawaii, Department of Education, and Hawaii Association of Independent Schools.
 
 

‘Olelo allocates twenty-five percent (25%) of its revenues from franchise fees to HENC
to fund educational programs and services that are primarily cablecast on two of ‘Olelo
channels.

ISSUE #1: Expanded Role for Counties in Cable Regulation

Currently, the State of Hawaii through the DCCA performs the regulatory functions
pertaining to the cable television industry in Hawaii. Major activities include basic
service tier rate regulation, franchise applications / renewals / transfers, resolution of
customer service complaints, appointment of PEG boards, negotiation of operating
agreement with PEGs, and the expansion and functional improvements of the
Institutional Network (“INET”). The DCCA also participates in matters indirectly related
to cable television, such as advocating for the interests of Hawaii consumers with regard
to Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”). The DBS industry is regulated on the federal level
by the FCC and is not regulated on the State or Local level.

It should be noted that Hawaii is one of a very few States that has franchising authority at
the State level. On the mainland, regulation of the cable industry most often resides at
the city, county or municipal level. In certain states, a cable operator may interface with
scores of LFAs.

A key threshold question is whether, and to what extent, the State should be responsible
for PEG access matters and cable tv regulation.

Regulatory Framework Options:

Option 1: Continue with current framework

Option 2: Expand the Counties’ Role

This option could range from providing an increased role for the Counties at the State
level, to a total transfer of the regulation of the cable television industry from the State to
each County government.

One approach would be to establish a greater role for the Counties, while retaining some
duties for the State. The possibilities include one or more of the following:

Partial Shift of Franchising Authority: The Counties could take the lead in negotiating
the specific terms and conditions of franchises in their county, while the State would
retain the right to review and approve the final product. This would give Counties the
ability to shape the agreements to suit their unique needs, while allowing the State to
ensure that statewide interests (such as access to the INET) are adequately protected.

PEG activities: Each County could be responsible for the activities of its PEG access
organization. For example, the Counties could be responsible for selection of board
members, negotiation of contracts with the PEGs, and/or facilitating the resolution of
complaints.

In addition, a planning entity, composed of members from each County, could be
organized to develop and implement strategies to continue the collaboration between
these independent PEG organizations.

Cable Advisory Committee (CAC): The Counties could have a greater role in cable governance
at the State level through representation on the DCCA’s cable advisory committee.
Issues concerning the committee are discussed in more detail below.
Another approach would be a total transfer of duties and responsibilities of the DCCA as
the local franchising authority, via amendment of State laws, to each County. Thus, each
County would be empowered to determine the appropriate assessment and distribution of
franchise fees within the County, would negotiate directly with cable operators on the
terms and conditions of their franchise agreements, and would establish their own
policies on PEG access issues. In summary, each County would be able to determine
what policies were best for that County, and complaints or concerns about cable service
or PEG access would be resolved at the County level.
As noted above, the DCCA’s regulation of the cable industry is currently supported by a
portion of the franchise fee. To the extent functions currently performed by the DCCA
are transferred to the counties, funding could be re-allocated from the DCCA to the
counties to support those functions.

ISSUE #2: Governance - PEG Board Appointment Process

Currently, members of the PEG board of directors are appointed by the Director of the
DCCA and by the cable operator for each County. The number of board members for
each PEG entity differs, reflecting the unique needs and wishes of each board.
 

The DCCA acknowledges the autonomy and decision making authority of each PEG
board of directors, and accordingly does not involve itself in the daily operational and
financial management of the access organization. Each PEG board is responsible for all
financial and operational management matters, including the resolution of complaints
from its producers and stakeholders. The DCCA and each PEG organization have a
contract currently in force that is automatically renewed annually unless terminated or
modified.

As board vacancies occur, each PEG access organization initiates a nomination process
that includes public notice of the vacancy, review of applications received, selection of
nominee, and presentation of recommended nominee to the DCCA or cable operator for
appointment to the board. The DCCA and the cable operator have the discretion to
accept or reject the recommendation. DCCA and the cable operator also have the
authority to remove directors once they are appointed.

A recent opinion by the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) stated that the DCCA’s
board appointment authority was a factor in OIP’s opinion that PEGs were an agency for
Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) purposes. Some observers believe that this
opinion has jeopardized the private, non-profit status of PEG access organizations and
have argued vigorously for the board appointment process to be amended by removing
the DCCA’s appointment authority.

The issue of governance, specifically the appointment of board directors, has been a
much debated topic over the past few years. One argument in favor of continued DCCA
involvement concerns the funding of the PEGs. Franchise fees are the result of orders
issued by the DCCA to the cable operator. The cable operator is ordered by the DCCA to
calculate, collect and distribute funds from cable subscribers for PEG purposes. The
DCCA has historically believed that it needs to exercise oversight of the expenditure of
these funds. The current board appointment process provides the DCCA with some
amount of oversight, both through the selection of directors and through the power of
removing directors. Proponents of change argue that the DCCA retains adequate
oversight through the annual reporting and contract renewal process. They believe that
the DCCA has adequate oversight by the fact that the contract can be renegotiated or not
renewed.

Possible Governance Options:

There are a number of possible options, some of which are identified here. The options
could be combined, i.e., board members could be selected by several different means.
One key question is whether different approaches should be allowed in each of the
different counties, or whether there should be uniformity across the State.

Option 1: Continue with current appointments by the DCCA and cable operator

Option 2: Self appointment by the PEG Boards

This will provide the board of each PEG access organization with autonomy in the
recruiting, selection and appointment of its board members. The current board of
directors for each access organization will be responsible for the appointment of future
board members. Public notice of vacancies and a published nomination process will be
required. In this scenario, the DCCA could also be represented on each board in an ex-officio
role.
Option 3: Appointments by Various Entities

This option would provide for appointment of board members by entities or individuals
other than the DCCA, or the cable operator, such as the Mayor of each county, county
councils, or the Legislature. This may provide more diverse representation.

Option 4: Election by PEG constituents

This will provide the constituents of PEG access organizations with the ability to
participate in the selection and appointment of board members. Constituents could
include viewers, cable subscribers, producers or other interested parties. Candidates for
vacancies could be identified by a nomination committee or by interested candidates
simply submitting an application or letter of interest. An election, conducted by the
access organization, would then be held to determine the new board member. The
election process ( mail- in ballots, electronic: email, internet ) would be left to each access
organization.

Option 5: Establishment of a Mechanism for Public and Producer Input

Some PEGs have established a process that allows public and producer input into their
policy formulation and decision making. This can foster an atmosphere of open
participation that allows various viewpoints to be considered by the PEG board of
directors as part of their decision making process.

Should the DCCA require the establishment of a process by each PEG that will allow
public and producer input into matters being considered by the boards of directors, and if
so, what form should that process take?

ISSUE #3: Cable Advisory Committee

The Cable Advisory Committee (“CAC”) is intended to advise the Director and cable
operators, upon request, with cable television related matters. The committee is
comprised of five (5) members who are appointed by the Governor and serve without pay
but are entitled to reimbursement of necessary expenses. The committee last met in 1990,
and the last member's term expired in 1996. No replacement members have been named
since then. It appears that the prior Administration believed that the CAC had been
established to provide guidance during the formative years of cable regulation, and that it
had outlived that role.

Cable Advisory Committee Options:

Option 1: Appoint members to the CAC

Under this option, the Governor would appoint five members to the CAC. Current law
does not specify residency or other requirements for membership. However, the
Governor could select representatives from each of the four counties.

Option 2: Introduce legislation to eliminate the CAC

Such legislation would be appropriate if the CAC has outlived its usefulness.

Option 3: Introduce legislation to amend composition of the CAC

Increase the size of the CAC so that more points of view can be represented, or otherwise
modify the structure and / or role of the CAC.

ISSUE #4: Financial Resources

As stated previously, franchise fee assessments are consistent statewide, except for an
agreed upon limitation that is in place for ‘Olelo on Oahu. ‘Olelo is subject to a $3.7M
cap that may increase annually based on the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). This
calculated cap amount is compared against the actual 3% calculation, and the lower
amount is remitted to ‘Olelo.

As stated previously, the distribution of franchise fees collected are as follows:
1) 3% of gross revenues to the PEG access organization for the specific County where
fees are collected
 
 

2) 1% of gross revenues to the Hawaii Public Television Foundation (Public Television –
PBS)

3) 1% of standard service revenues to the DCCA

Note: Approximately 0.64% of gross revenues

 Financial Resources Options:

Option 1: Continue with the current financial structure
 

Option 2: Should franchise fees be redistributed among the Counties?

Currently, franchise fees for PEG access collected in a particular County remain there for
the benefit of its residents. Some observers have suggested that there should be some
mechanism to redistribute franchise fees so that neighbor islands receive a larger
percentage of the statewide total. They suggest that absent such redistribution, some
areas of the neighbor islands are not able to receive even a minimal “baseline” of access
services.

One possible approach would be to redistribute any fees assessed in excess of a certain
amount on Oahu. That amount could be the $3.7 million cap that is already in place for
‘Olelo, or it could be some other amount. A formula or some other process to allocate
these funds would need to be implemented to ensure fairness in distribution.

ISSUE #5: PEG Channel Resource

Currently, all PEGs have access to five (5) channels on the cable operator’s cable systems
in each County. Only ‘Olelo on Oahu has activated and is cablecasting programming on
all five channels.
 
 

The availability of consistent channel capacity has allowed statewide cablecasting
capabilities for the State Legislature, University of Hawaii and the Department of
Education. By designating 2 channels for “E” purposes, both the UH and DOE are now
able to develop and implement instructional curriculum that can be utilized by campuses
on all islands. They are also able to take advantage of teaching resources residing on a
particular island to reach students statewide. This results in leveraging not only
personnel resources for statewide benefit, but also consistency in curriculum. For
example, a Calculus instructor on Maui will be able to reach students on all islands,
increasing quality of curriculum. On Oahu, ‘Olelo has reached an agreement with the
Hawaii Educational Networking Consortium (“HENC”) to manage and program ‘`Olelo's
two (2) “E” channels dedicated to the UH and DOE. HENC is composed of members
representing the UH, DOE, East West Center (“EWC”) and the Hawaii Association of
Independent Schools (“HAIS”).

Statewide broadcast capability from the State Legislature has recently been improved by
having broadcast feeds sent directly to the UH for statewide carriage on UH’s HITS
microwave network. This will result in more efficient transmission of live legislative
broadcasts to the neighbor islands. In addition to broadcasts from the State Legislature,
each PEG access organization has the resources to implement live broadcasts from their
respective City/County councils and executive branch. At this time, not all PEGs have
elected to implement live County government broadcasts.

PEGs can request additional channel capacity beyond the current allocation of five (5)
channels. Requests for additional channel(s) must be accompanied with documented
justification including, but not limited to, the following information: Statistical data
illustrating the use of existing channels, types of programming being cablecast on each
channel, statistics on channel programming that is first run versus re-run, percentage of
first run programming versus re-run programming, and percentage of time used for
“bulletin board”.

ISSUE #6: Sustainability

The issue of sustainability can be summarized by this question:
“What would happen to each PEG organization if funding from franchise fees suddenly
decreased significantly or disappeared completely?”

The question was first posed by the DCCA a few years ago as a discussion mechanism.
The major item that prompted DCCA’s request for plans of self sufficiency was the
evolution of technologies that compete with cable tv. At first, wireless cable companies
were the primary competition but lacked the market share to significantly impact the
cable tv operators. Currently, there is a technology that may present true competition to
cable tv, without cable’s regulatory requirements: Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”).
The DBS industry is represented by two major vendors, DirecTV and Echostar (Dish
 
 

Network). If these service providers continue to gain market share, at the expense of
cable tv companies, revenues to all beneficiaries of franchise fees will decrease. In
addition to competitive technologies, there is also the potential of an evolving cable tv
industry. If cable tv companies provided their services through the use of new or
innovative technologies, such as Wireless Fidelity (“WI-FI”), would they still be held to
requirements such as franchise fees? The development of new delivery systems and
technologies will be a significant consideration in future regulatory policy.

The second item that affects sustainability relates to regulatory issues facing
telecommunications / entertainment companies and the services they provide. For
example, the FCC has recently determined that cable modem service (Oceanic’s
Roadrunner) is an information service, not a cable service. Many jurisdictions, including
the State, have questioned this opinion, which currently is being reviewed by the FCC
and also being litigated in federal court. The cable modem issue illustrates the
uncertainty in this area, i.e., that services currently assessed with franchise fees may not
be assessed in the future. This uncertainty relating to designation of type of service and
the applicability of franchise fees also holds true for services being developed and not yet
deployed. There is no certainty in how the FCC will identify a new service, whether as
an information service or a cable service.

Given this uncertainty, how will PEGs continue providing current services while
planning for additional, enhanced benefits? Should they seek other sources of revenues,
and if so, what sources are appropriate? Should DCCA actively encourage and / or
require PEGs to seek other sources of revenue, or should it be left to the discretion of the
PEG entities?

Sustainability Options:

Option 1: Seek funding from other sources

In order to minimize dependence on cable tv related franchise fees and to increase
available funding, should PEG access organizations pursue other sources of funding
through various methods such as solicitation of grants, private – public joint ventures,
and traditional fundraising activities?

Option 2: Identify acceptable “for profit” activities as part of PEG mission

Although PEG programming is non-commercial in nature, should PEG organizations
have the discretion to pursue certain “for-profit” activities, and if so, what activities
would be acceptable?

ISSUE #7: Greater Community Participation

One of the primary goals of all PEG access organizations today is the extension of their
services to all areas of their communities. This involves addressing the issue of physical
access to the existing PEG facility i.e., how to provide services to residents who may not
have easy access to resources either because of geography or other factors. The DCCA
gives each PEG access organization discretion to select appropriate means to attain these
goals. Following are services currently being provided by some or all of the PEGs:

Remote Access Centers: Currently, some of the PEGs are considering or have
implemented remote facilities to address the concern of accessibility to PEG resources.
On Oahu for example, ‘Olelo has implemented remote sites in Kahuku and Waianae.
Although these are not fully equivalent to ‘Olelo’s main facility in Honolulu, they do
provide easier access for residents in the Leeward and North Shore communities of Oahu.
Mobile Facilities: Equipping a mobile van with production capabilities is also being
considered to address the needs for more outreach to remote geographic areas. This
option provides tremendous opportunities for greater outreach.

Alternate Sites: It has been suggested that the PEGs explore working relationships with
existing institutions that could extend the reach of their services. This could include
collocating with an existing non-profit corporation whose operations could be
complimentary. By creating such alliances, the public will gain added access to PEG
services while the PEGs will benefit by incurring lower outreach costs due to collocation
agreements.

Facilitated Production: PEGs currently provide the public with the option of creating
programming without becoming a certified producer. Such easy access services include
staff supported “open mike” sessions as well as volunteer supported facilitated
productions. These types of assisted services greatly expand and enhance the impact of
PEG resources to their communities.

Equipment and Staffing: Regardless of the alternatives implemented, whether remote,
mobile or collocated, the effectiveness of these options will be determined by their ability
to deliver acceptable service levels to the end-user. Certain minimum equipment
requirements have to be addressed including cameras, editing equipment and consistent
programming formats, such as DVD, etc. More important to the success of this outreach
initiative is the support provided by the PEG access organization that would accompany
these possible alternatives. It is critical to the success of this effort that client/user
support is readily available to assist wherever these alternatives are implemented.

ISSUE #8: Cooperation and Collaboration Among PEG Organizations

The DCCA strongly encourages the PEG entities to collaborate and cooperate in order to
maximize the resources available to each. By working cooperatively, the PEGs will
hopefully reduce redundant, resource consuming activities. Resources can be leveraged
and efficiencies maximized in this type of environment. Following are areas where
resources may be leveraged:

Equipment Resources: PEGs should implement a policy of notification when equipment
is planned to be retired. This will provide the opportunity for another PEG to request the
equipment instead of it being discarded or donated. A documented process needs to be
implemented in order for there to be mutual agreement and understanding on the
operational logistics. This will ensure an open and fair process. In addition to retired
equipment, cooperative purchasing and sharing of equipment is encouraged. This may
reduce overall costs for unique pieces of equipment that may be more practically
purchased by all four PEGs with an understanding regarding its shared use.

Personnel Resources: The DCCA encourages PEGs to share technical / support resources.
This may simply be regularly scheduled “roundtables” where staff from each PEG meets
to share ideas, experiences, etc. Or it can be structured instructional sessions where a
trained resource presents a certain topic. These sessions will not only increase the
expertise available in each PEG access center, but it will also further enhance the sense of
community among the PEGs themselves.

Programming Resources: The DCCA supports the current agreement between the PEGs
to share programming developed in their respective communities when it is appropriate.
As issues of common interest develop, the exchange of viewpoints between the islands
becomes more appropriate and relevant. The use and leveraging of common technologies
is encouraged to expedite this exchange of viewpoints and ideas.

ISSUE #9: PEG By-laws

Although the by-laws of the PEG organizations are similar in nature and content, there
are some differences which reflect the unique requirements and needs of each access
entity. For example, the number of board members varies due to the requirements of
each board. Certain boards prefer a greater number of members, and have increased their
board size, while others have retained the same number since the original formation of
the organization. The DCCA is sensitive to the unique needs that may face each PEG
access organization and will work with them to address their specific requirements while
still maintaining certain overall consistency.
 
 

The DCCA expects each PEG access organization to comply with their by-laws to
remove the potential for complaints and inconsistent operations. Specifically, the DCCA
is concerned with the process by which its board meetings are conducted and strongly
encourages the adoption and implementation of procedural rules, such as Roberts Rules
of Order. Adoption and adherence to such rules will facilitate more productive, fair, and
efficient meetings.

ISSUE #10: Chapter 92F / Uniform Information Practices Act
(OIP opinion dated 09-06-02) : Openness to the Public Records

All PEGs state that they comply with HRS Chapter 92F UIPA. The Office of
Information Practices determined in its opinion dated September 6, 2002 that Hoike and
‘Olelo are subject to and must abide by the UIPA.

Chapter 92F UIPA Options:

Option 1: Legislative modifications to amend requirements

Some of the Chapter 92F requirements may be unduly burdensome and / or costly for
non-profit entities such as the PEGs to comply with. Legislation could be proposed
which would streamline these requirements as applied to the PEGs while still ensuring
openness on the part of the PEGs.
 
 

ISSUE #11: Daily operational procedures – responsibility of each PEG

Although the DCCA recognizes the unique needs of all four PEG access organizations, it
strongly encourages the implementation of daily operational guidelines that address
certain significant issues. For example, the daily operational procedures for all PEGs
should include hours of operation. The DCCA is not implying that all PEGs keep the
same hours, only that the hours of operation are included. By developing a consistent set
of operational guidelines, it eases the transition for producers or constituents who may
have the opportunity to utilize PEG facilities in more than one County. Other potential
items could include:

- Frequency of scheduling for first time programming vs re-runs
- Sign-out and use of equipment
- Content disclaimer
- Rules governing political or campaign programming

ISSUE #12: Development of technical standards

The DCCA encourages the development of technical standards among the PEGs that will
result in certain baseline consistency among them. The creation of certain technical
standards will result in the following benefits:

- Similarly trained staff
- Cross support between organizations
- Additional resources during disasters and emergencies
- Potential purchasing benefits such as volume procurement

ISSUE #13: Review of connectivity (PEG Network) currently provided by TWE

The DCCA is currently working with Oceanic Time Warner Cable to review the
interconnections that make up the PEG Network in all Counties. The PEG Network is
the means by which all PEG programming is sent to and received by the cable operator’s
headend facility in each County. Once the PEG programming is received at the cable
operator’s facility, it is then inserted into the channel program lineup and distributed to
subscribers along with other programming.

The following interconnections comprise the PEG Network:

- PEG access organization to the cable operator’s headend facility
- UH and DOE to PEG organization, or directly to cable operator’s headend facility
- County government to PEG organization, or directly to cable operator’s headend facility

In most of the counties, the programming from the UH, DOE and government are
consolidated at the PEG facility then sent on to the cable operator’s facility. Although
this has been historically done, the DCCA will consider other options acknowledging that
there may be costs that would need to be addressed by the requesting entities.

ISSUE #14: Programming (CSPAN for Hawaii)

Some members of the community have identified a need for more civic affairs
programming including State and County legislative, executive and judicial proceedings,
as well as community based activities such as neighborhood board meetings.

The goal is to provide statewide distribution of civic / public affairs television
programming as a means to encourage democratic participation and public interest
through cablecasting. This endeavor will require the commitment and cooperation of
many organizations including coordination of their resources.

There are many alternative approaches to accomplish these objectives, such as the
expansion and enhancement of “G” programming currently provided by each of the four
PEG access organizations. Another option which has been suggested is the creation of a
separate, independent non-profit entity which would produce and distribute public affairs
programming in Hawaii, similar to what CSPAN does on a national level. This non-profit
would be responsible for managing the creation and distribution of public affairs
programming on a statewide basis. A source or sources of financial support would need
to be identified. Also, there are issues concerning channel capacity which would need to
be addressed.

ISSUE #15: Resolution of complaints concerning PEGs

The DCCA recognizes the private, non-profit status of the PEG organizations, and
accordingly relies on the PEG’s board of directors, officers and employees to be
responsible for overall client satisfaction, including the satisfactory resolution of
complaints received regarding its operations and management.

However, situations have arisen where the DCCA’s involvement is required to assist in
the resolution of inquiries and complaints received from PEG producers or other
constituents. In these instances, the DCCA will attempt to facilitate a reasonable solution
/ compromise that address the concerns raised while also respecting the policy and
decision making of the PEG’s board of directors. To accomplish this objective, DCCA
will relay complaints to the PEGs and request a copy of the responses to those complaints.
The appropriate resolution of complaints by the PEGs is a factor taken into account by
the DCCA in evaluating the performance of each PEG.

ISSUE #16: Role of PEGs : Production versus Facilitation

As the needs of their clients have evolved, PEG access organizations have reviewed and
assessed how they can continue to serve their unique communities. In addition to their
mission of training, developing production skills, and providing a forum for exchange of
ideas, PEG access organizations have also been involved in activities that some have
deemed non-traditional. Examples include: (1) responding to local government RFPs for
video and captioning services which results in competition with private organizations,
and (2) the development of programming utilizing the organization's resources, which
could result in decreased availability of equipment or other resources (such as air time) to
the public users of these access facilities. The development of such programming is
sometimes referred to as “community building”.
 
 

The DCCA has given the PEGs discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, they
should engage in such activities. Should DCCA continue to allow them discretion to
undertake such activities, and if so, should there be any limits on that discretion?