Comments on November draft:

Aaron Stein Wendy Arbeit Carol Bain Jim Becker

Ed Coll Jeff Garland Cheryl Hetherington Sheldon Jitis

Cheryl Kaster David Lassner David H. Leonard Lurline McGregor

Stuart McKinley Senator Cal Kawamoto Sean McLaughlin Danny A. Mateo

David Ray Mulinix Clyde Sakamoto Rick Tsujimura Laurie Veatch

All Draft Plan Comments 12-10-03 (PDF)-(HTML format)

---

DCCA DRAFT PLAN  November 2003

Introduction        Background

17: Independent Third Party Reviews (AUDIT)

In exchange for the use of valuable public rights-of-way, cable franchise holders are
required to set aside channels for public, education and government uses (“PEG”).
Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker’s soap box or the
electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They contribute to an informed citizenry in
many ways, whether through giving a voice to those who might otherwise not have one,
through bringing educational opportunities to our homes, or by showing our local and
state governments at work.
In the spring of 2003, DCCA decided to reassess the State’s policies on PEG access, and
to create a plan to guide the future development of PEG access television in Hawaii. To
that end, the DCCA developed a discussion document that identified 16 issues relating to
PEG access, and set forth possible policy options for many of those issues. The public
was invited to comment on the issues identified in the document, as well as any other
issues that they believed should be addressed. In order to facilitate that process, public
comment meetings were held in Hilo, Kona, Honolulu, Kahului and Lihue.
The response received by the DCCA reflects a strong public interest in cable access. 187
individuals and entities submitted written comments in some form. A total of 224 people
attended the public comment meetings, and 100 spoke at the meetings. The public
comment meetings were videotaped, and the meetings in Kahului and Honolulu were
broadcast live over PEG access channels. Public comments are available for review at
DCCA’s offices. Additionally, the written comments are posted on our website
(http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/catv).
The public testimony and comments show that PEG access is fulfilling its mission of
providing a forum for free expression for the people of Hawaii. Across the State, citizens
repeatedly told the DCCA about the opportunities that PEG access had given them to
reach their fellow citizens.
At the same time, the public comment process identified many challenges and areas for
improvement. These included: (1) the fact that conditions in each county are different,
and an approach to PEG access that works in one county may be unsuccessful in another,
(2) the fact that there are areas throughout the State, including both Oahu and the
neighbor islands, that are underserved by the current PEG access system, (3) a need for a
more participatory governance system for PEGs, both in the process of selecting board
members and in the rules governing how the PEGs conduct business, (4) a need for
DCCA to receive ongoing input from the community on issues relating to PEG access,
and (5) a need for periodic, independent review of PEG operations.
A PEG access plan can address, but scarcely hope to solve, all of these problems. Nor
can it satisfy everyone. What it can do, however, is establish processes and policies
which will enable the interested parties themselves to better address them. In other words,
the plan is just a starting point for an ongoing collaborative effort to improve PEG access
television in Hawaii.

Background

The regulation of the cable television (“tv”) industry is based on federal laws that allow
local regulation by a local franchising authority (“LFA”). The DCCA was designated by
the Legislature as the LFA for the State of Hawaii.
PEG access was initiated 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.
The following are the PEG corporations:

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

Each of these access organizations is funded by fees which are collected by the cable
operator from its subscribers. Federal law states that an LFA can assess up to 5% of the
cable tv operator’s gross revenues for purposes of these franchise fees. The recipients of
these fees include the four PEG access organizations, the DCCA and the Hawaii Public
Television Foundation (“HPTF”). The HPTF is better known to many as KHET Public
Television or PBS Hawaii.
The current distribution of franchise fees collected in each County is:
Note: DCCA receives 1% of standard service revenues, not gross revenues.
1% of standard service revenues are approximately .64% of gross revenues.
In addition to operating funds collected from cable subscribers, the cable operator also
makes capital fund payments to the PEGs for the purchase of items including equipment,
furniture, and fixtures. These payments are not a part of the franchise fee cap of 5%, and
are not directly assessed to subscribers on their invoices. The capital fund payment
amounts are the result of negotiations that involve the DCCA and cable operator with
input from the PEGs. At certain designated dates within the franchise period, the PEGs
are requested to work with the cable operator to develop a capital payment plan that is
then submitted to the DCCA for consideration.
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. Additional
channels can be requested by the PEGs, with supporting documentation. These requests
will be reviewed by the DCCA which 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.

Currently, the State of Hawaii through the DCCA regulates the cable television industry
in Hawaii. Among other things, DCCA performs basic service tier rate regulation,
reviews franchise applications / renewals / transfers, facilitates resolution of customer
service complaints, appoints members of PEG boards, negotiates operating agreements
with PEGs, and oversees the expansion and functional improvements of the Institutional
Network (“INET”). The DCCA also participates in matters indirectly related to cable
television, such as advocating 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.
DCCA’s PEG Oversight Plan – At the Option of Each County
There is a significant diversity between the Counties in the needs, priorities, and
challenges faced by their respective PEG entities. Currently, DCCA is responsible for
the oversight of all those entities, and has entered into contracts with each of them.
Under the Plan, the State will provide each County with the option to oversee PEG access
in that County.
If the County accepts:
All matters relating to PEG oversight within the County will be delegated to the county
by the DCCA, including but not limited to the determination of how to select board
members of the PEG entity, and what requirements to place on the PEG entity for
“sunshine” in its operations.
The current system of funding will remain in place, i.e., 3% of the cable operator’s gross
revenues collected in each County will be used for PEG purposes in that County. These
fees are currently paid by the cable operator directly to the PEG organization in each
County.
DCCA will provide the County with funding ($30,000.00/yr. ) to assist in the
administration and management of PEG access in that county. These funds will come
from the cable subscribers’ fees that are currently collected to support the administration
of DCCA’s cable program.
The current contract between the DCCA and the County’s PEG access organization will
be voided once a new contract is executed between the PEG access organization and the
County, as well as between the County and DCCA. The County will be required to
indemnify the State for any liability associated with the County’s oversight of the PEG
entity, and to require the PEG to cooperate with periodic audits (see issue 17 below).
If the County declines:
DCCA will continue to oversee the operation of the PEG entity located in that county.

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 has acknowledged the autonomy and decis ion making authority of each PEG
board of directors, and accordingly has not involved 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 issues such as the uses of
financial and equipment resources, and the resolution of complaints from its producers
and interested persons. 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 Decisions
and 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 ove rsight 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.
One issue that became apparent through the public comment proceedings is that there is a
significant sense of alienation on the part of some users of PEG access. These users feel
that they do not have a real voice in the governance of the PEG entities. Their frustration
is reflected, among other things, in a number of complaints made against the PEG entities.
It is the conclusion of DCCA that the present system provides a degree of oversight and
accountability which is appropriate and necessary. However, the system should be
modified to provide for a greater diversity of views on the boards of the PEGs.
DCCA’s Governance Plan:
If the County accepts the opportunity to oversee the PEG entity, then it shall be up to the
County to determine the appropriate selection process for board members in that County.
If a County declines the opportunity to oversee the PEG entity, the n the current system of
PEG governance will remain in effect, with one change. One of the positions on each
board that is currently selected by the director of DCCA will instead be selected by an
open election run by each PEG entity. The voters in that election will be limited to: (1)
anyone who is currently certified as a producer at the PEG entity, and (2) anyone who has
submitted a tape for broadcast by the PEG entity during the past year.
Currently, there are positions on each of the PEG entity boards which will need to be
filled on June 30, 2004, and which are scheduled to be selected by the Director of DCCA.
Under DCCA’s plan, the first of those positions on each board will be selected using this
election process. The PEGs shall be required to amend their bylaws subject to approval
of DCCA to establish the election process prior to that time.

The Cable Advisory Committee (“CAC”) was intended to advise the Director and cable
operators, upon request, on cable television related matters. This committee was
established by statute, but has not been active since 1990. 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.
Under current law, 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 before 1990, and the last member’s term expired in
1996. No replacement members have been named since then.
There is a need for DCCA to receive ongoing input from the community on cable matters
generally, and specifically on issues relating to PEG access. Accordingly, the DCCA will
recommend to the Governor that she appoint new members to the committee. Current
law does not specify residency or other requirements for membership. However, the
DCCA will recommend to the Governor that representatives from each of the four
Counties be appointed, along with an at- large appointment. The DCCA will further
recommend that the Governor seek input from the mayor of each County regarding
possible appointees from that County.

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); and
3) 1% of standard service revenues to the DCCA
Note: This is equal to approximately 0.64% of gross revenues
Due to the differences in population as well as differences in cable services purchased by
subscribers, franchise fees vary widely among the four Counties. Under current DCCA
policy, the fees collected in each County remain in that County. The fees collected for
each PEG access organization in 2002 were:
Franchise fees for PEG access collected in a particular County currently remain there for
the benefit of its residents. There has been much debate regarding the issue of
redistribution of franchise fees regardless of their source. Many members of the public
support the current system, under which fees remain in the County in which they are
collected. Others suggest 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 PEG access services.
In any event, it is clear that there are a number of areas which are underserved by the
current system. These include islands such as Molokai and Lanai, rural areas on the
neighbor islands such as Hana, and portions of Oahu such as the windward side. It is also
clear that some of the recent successes in PEG access have occurred when PEG access
services are brought into communities where there is a strong need and support for them,
such as Waianae and Palolo on Oahu.
In order to support additional funding for these services without increasing the amounts
assessed to cable subscribers, DCCA will reallocate funds that are currently being
collected to support its administration of cable regulation in Hawaii. In the past, up to
$500,000/yr. of those funds have been appropriated to support the INET. Since the INET
is largely deployed, expenditures at that level are unlikely to be needed in the future.
Accordingly, DCCA will seek to reallocate a portion of the amount currently collected to
support cable administration, and make these additional funds available for PEG purposes
as described in the process below. The result will be an increase in funds available for
PEG purposes, without an increase in cable subscribers’ overall bills.
DCCA’s Funding Plan : Additional funding to support cable access in underserved
areas
DCCA will implement a three (3) year pilot program that will provide additional funding
to meet the cable access needs of currently underserved areas. Such funding could be
used to support additional access centers or for other programs which will enhance
services in those areas.
Criteria for the program will be developed by DCCA in consultation with the cable
advisory committee. It is anticipated that the cable advisory committee will also assist in
reviewing applications and making funding recommendations to the Director of DCCA.
Funding will be available to current recipients of cable franchise fees, i.e., the four PEG
organizations.

Currently, all PEGs have access to five (5) channels on the cable operator’s cable systems
in each County.
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”).
A significant milestone was reached in August 2003, when all PEG access organizations,
the UH, and DOE reached an agreement to implement consistent channel numbering for
“E” channels statewide. UH programming can be viewed on channel 55 statewide, while
DOE programming can be viewed on channel 56 statewide.
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”.

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 operators. Currently, there is a technology that may present true competition to
cable tv, without cable’s regulatory requirements: DBS. The DBS industry is currently
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 (e.g. 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.
Again, the DCCA initially posed this question to the PEGs as a discussion mechanism on
the effects that evolving technologies and regulatory issues may have on their revenues.
Although the DCCA has not required any specific actions on the part of the PEGs
regarding this matter, a plan was requested from each PEG that included actions that
would be initiated in case revenues from cable operators were severely restricted.
DCCA encourages the PEGs to identify and pursue additional funding from other sources,
such as through grants that are consistent with the overall PEG mission.
If a County takes over responsibility for PEG access, then it will be up to the County to
determine its policy on this issue.

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. The 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.
For example on Oahu, ‘Olelo has implemented remote sites in Kahuku, Waianae, and
Palolo. Although these are not fully equivalent to ‘Olelo’s main facility in Honolulu,
they do provide easier access to PEG services for residents.
Mobile Facilities: Equipping a mobile van with production capabilities is also being
considered to address the needs of more 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.
The DCCA supports and encourages the outreach and extension of services undertaken
by the PEGs, and will continue to do so in the future.
If a County takes over responsibility for PEG access, then it will be up to the County to
determine its policy on this issue.

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. The following are areas the
DCCA believes 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 their 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 information on 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.

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 requirements of each PEG access
organization and will work with them to address their specific requirements, while still
maintaining an appropriate level of 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.
If a County exercises the option to oversee the PEG entity, then it will be up to the
County to determine the administration and management of the PEG bylaw process.
If the County declines that option, then DCCA will continue its current policy of
attempting to accommodate the unique requirements of each entity, while maintaining a
degree of uniformity among the four entities.

All PEGs have stated that they comply with HRS chapter 92F, the UIPA. The Office of
Information Practices determined in an opinion dated September 6, 2002 that Hoike and
‘Olelo are subject to and must abide by the UIPA.
The PEGs vary in their approach to the issues addressed by HRS chapter 92 regarding
Public Agency Meetings and Records. For example, some PEGs have adopted policies
regarding the procedure for conducting public meetings which appear to be more
restrictive than the requirements of HRS chapter 92. Some community members and
users of PEG access services have expressed concern about what they perceive as a lack
of openness at the PEGs.
The DCCA understands that compliance with HRS chapters 92F and 92 can pose a
financial and staff burden on the PEGs. However, DCCA believes that openness and
accountability are crucial. Accordingly, for those PEG entities that remain under DCCA’s
oversight, DCCA will require that they adopt bylaws and policies which comply with the
requirements of HRS chapters 92F and 92.
For those PEG entities in counties that elect to oversee the PEG function, it will be up to
the County to determine the policy on these issues that it deems appropriate.

Although the DCCA recognizes the unique needs of all four PEG access organizations, it
strongly encourages the implementation of written operational guidelines that address
certain significant issues. The existence of written guidelines on these issues helps
facilitate transparency and consistent application of the policies of each PEG. For
example, the daily operational procedures for all PEGs should include reasonable hours
of operation. Other issues that should be addressed in written policies include:

The DCCA encourages PEGs to work cooperatively to develop consistent technical
standards. These could include a common tape playback format, producer certification
requirements, and equipment use certification. The creation of such technical standards
will result in the following benefits:

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:
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.

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.
The idea of a CSPAN for Hawaii has potential, but many significant issues need to be
addressed. These include funding, the provision of channel capacity, and the extent to
which such an entity would duplicate services that are (or could be) provided by the PEG
access organizations. Before the CSPAN idea can move forward, there must be a dialog
on these issues between the affected parties, including proponents of the CSPAN idea,
the cable operator, government agencies, and the PEG entities.

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
to determine whether additional follow up is needed. The appropriate resolution of
complaints by the PEGs is a factor taken into account by the DCCA in evaluating the
performance of each PEG.
If a County declines the option to oversee the PEG function, DCCA will continue with its
current policies regarding resolution of complaints concerning PEG access organizations.
If a County exercises the option, then it will be up to the County to determine its policy
on this issue.

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. The DCCA will continue to allow the PEGs discretion
in this area.
If a County accepts oversight of the PEG, it will be up to that County to determine the
appropriate policy for its PEG organization.

ISSUE #17: Independent Third Party Reviews

Each PEG entity is required to submit annual reports to DCCA including financial
statements, operational plan and budget, equipment inventory, and a year–end activity
report.
However, some members of the public have suggested that the PEGs should periodically
be subjected to the more detailed evaluation that an independent third party review would
provide. DCCA agrees with this suggestion, and will implement a program to provide for
the PEGs to be reviewed periodically by an independent third party. Such a review could
include issues such as whether the PEGs are complying with the terms of their contracts
with DCCA (or the County) and that the funds they receive are used for their intended
purposes. DCCA expects that one PEG would be reviewed each year, so that each PEG
would be reviewed every four years.
Even if a county exercises the option to oversee the PEG entity, DCCA would retain the
right to have reviews performed on that PEG. DCCA believes that the state must retain
the ability to require such reviews in order to ensure that cable subscribers’ monies are
being used appropriately.