Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications

Council wants your thoughts on cable TV

9 Comments

Councilman Turner wants the council to hear from you regarding cable television. The city’s franchise agreement with Insight is ending next year, and Turner thinks Insight’s service leaves something to be desired. Several other council members chimed in with concerns about everything from high prices to service responsiveness. So, the motion to hire an attorney to negotiate a new franchise agreement was amended: in addition to hiring the attorney, the council will hold neighborhood meetings to find out how the public feels about their cable service.

Councilman Morris brought up a good point, too — technology has changed dramatically in the past twenty years, and technological change isn’t getting any slower, so we probably shouldn’t renew for twenty more years. In fact, Randy Ray has already indicated he’s hoping for a shorter term. Morris also pointed out that Insight doesn’t just offer cable TV anymore, but also internet access and even phone service in some communities. How will a new franchise agreement affect these additional services, if at all?

Also, we know what the city wants to get out of a new agreement, but what does Insight want? I’m going to go out on a limb (ha ha) and guess a lower franchise fee. The city used to collect 10% of their (then GE Cablevision’s) adjusted gross revenue until the FCC decreed in April 1981 that franchise authorities couldn’t collect more than 5%. The franchise fee now is still 5% of Insight’s adjusted gross revenue, payable monthly. Back in 1986, they (UA Cablesystems at that time) tried to get Peoria County to agree to a 3% rate, but the County told them if they wouldn’t give them the same 5% they gave the city, they could remove their equipment and get the heck out of town. So UA backed down and passed the higher cost on to the subscribers.

My guess is they will argue that they face increased competition from satellite providers like Dish Network who don’t have to pay local fees, and need to have the franchise fee lowered so they can keep their prices competitive. I expect they’ll ask for 3% or less.

I’ll look forward to hearing the public input. What’s important to you? How do you feel about Insight’s service? What do you think needs to be included in the next franchise agreement?

* * * * * * * * * * * *

And now for a little history, for those who might be interested:

Peoria has only negotiated two cable franchise agreements. The first one was awarded in 1966 to General Electric (GE) Cablevision for twenty years. At that time, cable television was a hotly debated topic locally and nationally. Broadcast stations didn’t like it, worrying that bringing in stations from other cities would draw viewers away and hurt their ad revenue. The FCC muddled through all kinds of different regulations, worried that pay TV would “siphon off all the good programming from free TV.” Thus, even though the franchise was awarded in 1966, GE didn’t start offering cable television until 1972 because, until then, the FCC prohibited cable companies from piping in channels from other cities (e.g., Chicago). GE figured people wouldn’t pay for exactly the same stations they can get for free over the air, so they waited until they could offer extra channels like WGN.

The franchise agreement was transferred from GE to UA Cablesystems. They renewed in 1986 — that’s the second and last franchise agreement Peoria negotiated. I got a copy of it through a Freedom of Information Act request, and I converted it to digital form — as long as you have Adobe Acrobat Reader ver. 5.0 or greater, you can read it here. What do you think? Are they living up to their agreement?

The agreement is somewhat entertaining to me, just because of how much times have changed since 1986. Consider, for instance, what you remember about 1986. I was a sophomore in high school then, and not many people had personal computers compared to today. It was the year of the Challenger disaster, as well as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Reagan was president. We were watching Ferris Bueler’s Day Off and Family Ties while listening to Take On Me by A-ha on KZ-93. The cable franchise agreement looks like it was typed up on a typewriter instead of a computer (it probably was). At that time, the city wanted the cable system to have a capacity of a whopping thirty channels initially — and they wrote in the agreement that they wanted it upgraded to 52 channels after ten years.

In September 1986, UA Cablesystems was bought out by Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI). It was TCI Cable for about twelve years. Then in October 1998, TCI merged with AT&T Consumer Services (ACS). But, it wasn’t long before the franchise was transferred to Insight (December 2000). Insight is now the ninth largest cable operation in the U.S., with 1.3 million subscribers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. They brought in over $269 million in the first quarter of 2005. Their home office is in New York.

So they have ample capital for waging war on franchise agreements. Galesburg also uses Insight for their cable provider. If this article from The Zephyr is at all accurate in describing their negotiations (I have no way of verifying it, so I can’t vouch for it), then Randy Ray and his new cable attorney better be on their toes whenever the contract comes back from New York with revisions.

City of Peoria

It’s not a “film” if it’s a DVD

5 Comments

There was a big article in the Central Illinois Journal Star’s Cue section yesterday about the Apollo Theater showing several Alfred Hitchcock “films.” However, buyer beware! They’re not really showing the films — they’re showing DVDs.

I went to see “White Christmas” last December at the Apollo and was shocked to find out that they weren’t showing an actual film print of the movie, but rather a DVD (the same one I have at home, as a matter of fact) projected on their screen using a large LCD projector. I felt duped. Here I had paid $5 and trudged downtown to see one of my favorite movies in glorious Technicolor, and instead I see… the DVD on a giant TV screen, essentially. We already solved this problem in our backyard, when I researched how to choose a projector that works in daylight for our kids playdates and picked something out on Amazon.

I’m sorry, that’s not a film. It shouldn’t be billed as a film, and it shouldn’t be listed in the CIJS under the “film” heading. When I go to the theater, I want to see an original film print. If I want to see it on DVD, I’ll go to Blockbuster. I asked the gentleman at the Apollo that night why they don’t show film prints anymore, and he said that most theaters were “going digital.”

First of all, playing a DVD through an LCD projector can hardly be considered “going digital,” as if that’s the technology Lucas is using for “Star Wars.” This is not digital film. Secondly, I don’t know of any theaters around here that are digital (Rave may be an exception — I’m not sure). But one can hardly say that most places are “going digital.” They all still show film prints. Even the Normal Theater in Normal shows film prints, and they’re in the same situation as the Apollo — a restored theater showing old movies, charging $5 a ticket. I saw “The Music Man” in Normal a couple years ago and let me tell you, there is a difference between DVDs and film prints.

Now, I realize that the word “film” can be used to describe the medium (flexible strip of plastic) and/or the motion picture itself. But it’s not fair to hide behind technical definitions like this. The clear connotation of going to a movie theater to see a “film” is the expectation that one will see a film print. Otherwise, one could just as easily set up a 20″ TV in a movie theater and play a VHS tape of “Gone With the Wind” and still say they’re showing a “film.” It’s misleading.

Just to make sure that this was still the state of affairs, I called the Apollo and Normal theaters today and verified their media. Apollo: DVD. Normal: film. The Apollo should stop marketing their presentations as “films” if they’re not going to be using film prints, or at least provide full disclosure.

City of Peoria

Legislation would hurt neighborhoods

It appears the City of Peoria is against some legislation snaking its way through the Illinois legislature.  Senate Bill 1727, the “Residential Inspection Ordinance Act,” passed the Illinois Senate on April 15 (Risinger voted yea, Shadid nay).  It has now gone to the House and has been referred to the Rules Committee.
 
Here’s a quote from an e-mail I have here from Randy Oliver (sent to Leslie McKnight, Neighborhood Development Specialist, and subsequently forwarded to Peoria homeowners associations) on why the city is opposed to this legislation:
This bill effectively shuts down all inspections of existing properties. The impact to local communities is life threatening and will decrease property values. Municipalities will have to get a court order to inspect property for building code violations if the owner does not permit them.

The lack of inspections will permit slum lords to continue to rent their properties to anyone with glaring violations. When properties are sold with violations, the new owners may br unknowing purchasers of problem properties.

When properties are not maintained values go down. I strongly urge all Neighborhoods to contact your representatives and strongly oppose this bill. If the bill passes however it may be time to considermobile homes for rent in las vegas as a more affordable option.

Those in favor of the bill include the Illiniois Rental Property Owners Association and the Illinois Association of Realtors (IAR).  According to the IAR’s March 18 edition of Quorum Call, this bill is in fact an IAR initiative, and they hope that it will establish “reasonable restrictions on pre-sale or pre-occupancy inspection requirements enacted by municipal ordinance.”  And in their April 18 edition, they claim, “This bill guarantees that the constitutional rights of property owners are protected and still permits municipal health and safety inspection ordinances to be enacted to ensure the protection of the housing stock and for the health and safety of the residents.”
 

However, if you read the text of the bill, you won’t find any exception for “health and safety inspection” as the IAR claims.  In fact, that’s why the Illinois Municipal League is also against SB1727.  Here are their reasons (from this link, accessed on 4/25/05):
SB 1727, an initiative of the Illinois Association of Realtors, will severely impact the quality of housing stock in municipalities and counties throughout the state. The bill specifically states that any local ordinance, law, rule or regulation calling for the inspection of residential property shall require the consent of the owner or occupant. If consent by either party is denied, an administrative warrant must be obtained. No municipality or county may hold up the sale of residential property on the basis that a required inspection has not been completed or that code violations have not been corrected. Home rule authority to deviate from these new restrictions on municipal power is expressly prohibited. This proposed legislation puts all residents, especially the low-income homebuyer and renter, at the mercy of unethical property owners, landlords and realtors.

Senate Bill 1727 will allow property owners to rent out substandard living spaces. These are frequently older single-family homes that have been converted illegally into multi-family apartments. In those instances, families may live in basements and attics that have only one way out in case of a fire. Some of the tenants living in these substandard conditions are not legal citizens – thus they do not report violations of the building code because they are afraid that they will get deported or their landlord will kick them out. The intent of municipal building codes is to protect everyone.

Senate Bill 1727 will assist landlords who make no effort to maintain their properties or flaunt health and life safety codes. Over time, such activities lead to decreasing property values and blight and in some instances may threaten the life of inhabitants. Instances of activities threatening inhabitants include removal of load bearing walls and elevated porches resulting in structural failure and collapse. Exemplary of inadequate maintenance is an incident in Cicero where improper and inadequate maintenance of tuck-pointing in a brick façade resulted in the collapse of the wall and the death of the tenant occupying the property.

Senate Bill 1727 will allow homebuyers in many communities, often low-income homebuyers, to buy property that does not meet minimum code standards.

Municipal inspection programs are designed to protect citizens, maintain housing stock, and prevent the development of unsafe and blighted properties. The inspections, and the process they follow, are guided by nationally developed maintenance codes for residential properties. This legislation, ostensibly introduced to address the problems in one community, will affect all communities throughout the state and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens within those communities.

OTHER GROUPS OPPOSED:
City of Chicago, DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference, Metro Counties of Illinois, Northwest Municipal Conference, South Suburban Mayors and Managers, West Central Municipal Conference, Will County Governmental League, IL Fire Chiefs Association, IL Association of Fire Protection Districts, IL Fire Safety Alliance, IL Firefighters Association, IL Fire Inspectors Association, IL Fire Service Association, IL Code of Council Administrators, and the IL Plumbing Inspectors Association.

It looks to me like, while the people supporting this bill may have good intentions, the bill as it exists now is a bad bill, vulnerable to exploitation by slumlords and a nightmare for neighborhoods.  If you agree, let your representative know (you can find out who your representative is here).