by Patrick Cody ♦ More about the Vermont Access Network is at their website.

Data-Driven Protection? Vermont’s unique PEG Access annual reporting requirements may be leading the way towards protecting future funding. Since the inception of VT Public Service Board Rule 8, the rule governing cable television in the state, in 1994, PEG stations have been required to submit annual reports to the cable providers, the Department of Public Service, and the Public Service Board. When Rule 8 was updated in 2007, efforts were made to “professionalize” PEG Access operations (part of this was a formal classification of all PEG stations as “Access Management Organizations”, or AMOs). Around the same time, in an attempt to streamline reporting among colleagues, making it possible for “apple to apple” comparisons, VAN took the initiative several years ago in drafting an annual report template for AMOs. Garnering support from the cable providers and the Vermont Public Service Board, the report template established itself as the norm. We now have many years of data to analyze across the 25 AMOs; this data ranges from annual operating and capital budgets, programming hours, equipment and faculty usage, and various pieces of information relating to cable provider obligations. This report has been updated and improved over the last few years, but the data it collects remains consistent.

As of last year, VAN now has a paid (part-time) staff member, Greg Epler-Wood. Part of Greg’s work involves supporting the VAN Board’s efforts in advocating for PEG Access / community media in the State. Lately this has involved reviewing and analyzing the annual report data to identify trends and potential needs. From Greg: “VAN, over the last several years, has collected and tracked over 30 data points for our 25 organizations. This, combined with several surveys—informal and formal, regional and statewide—has enabled us to accurately make a compelling case for vibrancy, programmatic diversity, and a general appreciation of the important of PEG Access in our state.” Greg states that he is still crunching numbers, but he expects to soon be able to demonstrate that while PEG Access services (numbers of channels, programs, workshops, etc.) have been increasing, funding levels are in jeopardy. Cited are the industry and national trends (in more urban and suburban areas) of the practice of “cord cutting” by customers. While the PEG Access funding many AMOs have experiences in recent years (due to customer upgrades to and other new cable services, as well as cable provider build-outs in our more rural areas) will eventually flatten. Since most Vermont AMOs receive between 80 – 100% of their total funding from cable TV subscriber revenue, this is a real challenge.

Considering many of our AMOs are very small organizations, VAN has made tremendous strides when it comes to data collection; we have certainly come a long way, and have, in fact, “professionalized” ourselves in many ways. But we are limited in what we can actually do with the data until and unless the cable providers, namely Comcast, can start providing us with more concrete data when it comes to cable subscriber data. Most AMOs do not get that data–they do not know, for example, exactly how may cable subscribers they are serving. VAN has intervened in the Public Service docket reviewing Comcast’s Certificate of Public Good renewal. There is a “Comcast committee” working on that very task. Part of that effort includes trying to compel Comcast to provide that level of data so that PEG funding can be better tracked. The State, as the regulatory authority, should have an interest in that as well so that its observations and determinations can be data-driven. As has been proven before, it seems we only see progress when we take the lead.