Uncategorized

P.O. Polly

PollyPeoria is really ticked off at the pending appointment of George Jacob to the council’s vacant at-large seat.  Even though her rhetoric is heated, she makes some good points.  Jacob wouldn’t have even been eligible had a law not been repealed that prohibited liquor license holders from serving on city councils or county boards.  And the person apparently responsible for getting that legislation through is Rep. Leitch, who was the recipient of some campaign contributions from Jacob’s company, Brewers Distributing.  And, as soon as Blago signed the bill, Jacob was chosen in a straw vote in a closed session of the council.
 
It certainly has the appearance of impropriety.  Like they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. 
 
On the other hand, maybe this guy really is the best-qualified candidate, in which case one could see why our local officials would want to do whatever they could to take any unnecessary roadblocks out of the way for him.  I really don’t know the guy, so I’m inclined to withhold judgement until I see how he votes and how ethical his tenure is.  I personally would have preferred to see Pat Sullivan on the council — he was even willing to divest himself of his liquor license so all the Springfield finegling would have been unnecessary.
 
Note:  The Peoria Pundit has posted an interesting interview with Jacob.

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.

Uncategorized

Peoria’s cable TV franchise renewal is coming up — how is Insight doing?

I noticed that one of the items on the agenda for tomorrow night’s council meeting is a request to hire an attorney to negotiate a new cable franchise agreement. I learned from CableFAX’s Cable World website how Insight is positioning itself for the renewal process:

Insight presents its customer service improvements–as well as details of its rebuilt cable plant and new service–as proof to city officials that it is living up to the commitments in its franchise agreement, which is coming up for renewal in 2006. Randy Ray, the Peoria city attorney who handles the franchise renewal negotiations, says it’s too early to tell if there are any demands the city might have. He is looking for more input from the community in city council meetings leading up to the negotiations. He expects the franchise term will be shorter than the 20-year agreement that expires at the end of this year. “This is the city’s first opportunity to even really look at this,” Ray says.
Relations between Insight and the city of Peoria are “relatively trouble free,” he says. “I hesitate to comment on plant or any other infrastructure issues because…we haven’t really addressed them yet. But I know when I go home and turn my TV on, I have cable.”
Kim Sheetz, Insight’s Peoria district community and public affairs manager, is gearing up for several other franchise renewal meetings this year in communities outside of Peoria proper. She’s not expecting to field angry demands at any of the meetings.
“With all the advanced services, they are pretty willing to agree to new franchises,” Sheetz says.


Specifically, Peoria’s franchise agreement with Insight expires April 15, 2006. The article doesn’t say how short Ray would like the new franchise agreement to be, but Galesburg’s most recent franchise renewal with Insight in May 2002 was for only five years. One fee in particular the city would like to avoid is mentioned in the request for council action: The city currently pays $32,000 per year to broadcast the city council meetings on Insight’s public access channel. In the new franchise agreement, the city wants to eliminate that fee.

I wonder what else could be included in the franchise agreement that would benefit Peoria.

Back in February of this year, the FCC rejected proposals that would have required cable companies to provide (a) enough space for broadcast stations’ analog and digital channels during the transition to digital television (“dual must-carry”), and (b) enough space for multiple signals from each broadcaster (“multi-cast must-carry”). Could or should the new franchise agreement in Peoria require dual or multi-cast must-carry provisions?

What about television decency? Could or should there be a provision in the new franchise agreement that the cable company provide a family-friendly package lineup for basic cable subscribers?

One of the provisions in the city’s municipal code calls for public, educational, and governmental access channels, and that these channels be “available for all forms of public expression, community information and debate of public issues.” They also are required to provide facilities for producing public access programs. Should the new agreement include a requirement that sound and video be upgraded in these facilities? Public access programs have notoriously poor sound and video quality.

Another provision in the city’s municipal code allows the city to buy the cable company and own/operate it itself. Since the city is trying to get into the water business, should the city try to get into the cable broadcasting business, too, for the sake of saving Peorians money and having another revenue stream? (Okay, that question was tongue-in-cheek, if you couldn’t tell.)

According to the Cable World article, Randy Ray is “looking for more input from the community” regarding the new franchise agreement. So, what do you all think? Let me know and I’ll pass your serious comments on to Mr. Ray.

Uncategorized

Community Values on council agenda

On the agenda for Tuesday’s City Council meeting is a request from the city manager and councilman Morris to adopt the following set of values compiled by the Peoria Coalition for Community Values (“a group of approximately sixty individuals in the community” who have “assumed leadership for this initiative”):
WHAT WE VALUE AS A COMMUNITY
March l, 2005
 
Children and Families
All members of the community are valuable. However, we recognize the vulnerability of children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged. Because we recognize children and families as a critical core of our community, their interests will be one of the defining criteria in all of our decision making.
 
Personal and Shared Responsibility
We will promote personal responsibility for ourselves, our families, our homes and neighborhoods, and our government and laws. We expect the same from all other community members and will partner with one another to share community responsibility in a manner that recognizes and rewards meritorious conduct and service.
 
Learning and Empowerment
We will invest in every person in order to help them realize their dreams and achieve personal success. We will promote lifelong learning, innovation, and use of current technology. We will establish a climate favorable to ethical business formation and growth, formation of new businesses, and meaningful employment opportunities.
 
Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation
Healthy conflict stimulates diverse thinking and creative resolution of problems; and reconciliation will bring healing and an opportunity to develop healthy relationships. Therefore, we will not necessarily avoid conflict, but we are committed to working through conflict in a positive manner despite its severity and to persevere toward just reconciliation regardless of our differences.
 
Respect
We value respect based on intentional appreciation, personal and corporate integrity, civil discourse, kindness, and understanding differences. We will practice respect in all of our dealings, employing open, honest, complete and civil communications.
 
Fostering and Supporting Good Leadership
We will encourage people to become involved in the community, seek to grow new leaders, and support leaders who are good stewards of our community values and assets.
 
Fact-based decision-making
We will base decisions and action plans on objective data and truth, thereby avoiding distortion of issues by personal feelings or agendas.
 
Art of the Possible Thinking
We believe in the unlimited potential of the Greater Peoria area. We will envision “success without limitations”, and then map specific, attainable strategies for achieving progress toward that vision.
 
Relational Community
We will create an inclusive, cohesive community through partnership and collaboration. We are willing to cross political, social, ethnic, economic, religious, and cultural boundaries to partner with others in order to achieve superior outcomes.
 
Accountability
We are accountable to our community for achieving specific outcomes and for the manner in which they are accomplished.
Some of these are good (“respect,” “accountability”), and some are just silly (“art of the possible thinking” *eyes roll*).  I personally think they could have saved themselves a lot of time by just adopting the Scout Law (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent).  Peoria could benefit from the “thrifty” and “clean” parts especially. 
 
But all in all, I think the Request for Council Action form sums up this proposal best: 
Impact if approved:  N/A
Impact if denied:  N/A

Uncategorized

Another building for District 150?

Am I the only one who was flummoxed by the Journal Star story today that District 150 is applying to get the old Social Security Administration building on Knoxville?  Cindy Fischer (Interim Superintendant) is reported to have explained that the district could use it to expand the Transition to Success Academy, currently housed in White Middle School. 
 
Isn’t this the district that is looking to combine primary and middle schools so they can get rid of some of their buildings?  Just as recently as May 19, the Journal Star reported that the district is considering closing schools to “close its budget shortfall of $19 million over three years.”  So why in the world would they want another building?
 
Just because the purchase price may be free doesn’t mean that the building won’t cost money to maintain and operate.  And office buildings aren’t exactly laid out conducively for a school; are the kids going to sit at modular office cubicles instead of school desks?  I would imagine there would need to be a fair amount of renovation before it would be adequate for a school setting.  And what about location?  There’s no greenspace for children to play, and it’s right on state route 40 — one of the busiest arteries in the city. 
 
Hopefully, the Human Service Center will decide they want the building and make this discussion moot (they get first dibs).  But if they don’t want it, District 150 should also pass it up.  There’s nothing free about owning property, and the last thing the district needs is more expense.

Uncategorized

Felt: Jilted G-Man

I’m getting a bit tired of the glorification of W. Mark Felt, alias “Deep Throat.” The Journal Star editorial board published their paean to Felt today (“Deep Throat did service for nation”).

The editorial excuses all of Felt’s illegal actions and questionable motives with an ends-justify-the-means apology. “There were crooks in the White House,” they exclaim. Yes, and apparently there was a crook in the number-two position at the FBI as well — a guy who was bitter about being passed over for the top spot at the Bureau and wanted to take revenge; a guy who was convicted for violating American’s civil rights; a guy who thought the Bureau was so corrupt that he couldn’t go through proper channels, but didn’t mind drawing a paycheck from them; a man who broke the law and his trust with the President by leaking classified information.

The Journal Star (and many others) forgive all these indiscretions. They point out that Felt was later pardoned for his civil-rights violation conviction. So what? Nixon was pardoned, too.

The truth is, Felt is no better than Nixon. He’s just a jilted G-man, not a hero. And a paper that laments that “America’s judicial system . . . was at stake” under Nixon’s administration shouldn’t be celebrating vigilante justice in the FBI.

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.

Uncategorized

“Justice Sunday” a lesson in exploitation

In the fight against Senate Democrats blocking Bush’s judicial nominees by using the filibuster (ala Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), a new weapon has been unleashed: evangelical Christians. Last Sunday there was a broadcast called “Justice Sunday” in which several Christian leaders, including James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Chuck Colson (Prison Fellowship), took to the airwaves and challenged Christians to contact their senators to stop filibustering and give the judges an up or down vote.

What does this have to do with Christianity? Why should Christians be concerned? Ah! Well, because, according to the Family Research Council (FRC), Dobson, and others, it’s because the judges being filibustered are people of faith. That’s why this is a Christian issue. The Senate is blocking people of faith from becoming judges, so we should mobilize against this tyranny.

I heard about this a lot from the Family Research Council (FRC) because I take care of programming “Grace TV,” which is broadcast on Insight cable channel 20 (Peoria only) 156 hours per week (approx.). We mostly show a religious cable channel called FamilyNet out of Fort Worth, Texas, although in the afternoons we also broadcast INSP (Inspiration Network) out of Charlotte, North Carolina. FamilyNet carried “Justice Sunday” and the FRC wanted to make it an event. They were encouraging churches to broadcast this event in their sanctuaries and invite their congregations to come watch, then take action. (We didn’t participate in this, however, at our church.)

Republicans are using people of faith to accomplish their political goals by couching those goals in religious language, and that’s exploitation. And it appears that Christians are falling for it. On the FRC website the day after the event, they gleefully reported that the congressional phone lines were jammed with people calling for an end to judicial filibusters.

The Democrats are not against these judges because of their faith — they’re against them because they’re ideologically opposed to their views on certain issues, such as their views on women’s rights or strict constructionism. The judges’ views may flow from or be informed by their faith, but there’s a big difference between opposing someone because he believes in God and opposing someone because he’s a strict constructionist. The leaders who were on “Justice Sunday” are trying to push the correlation too far, and are exploiting their followers as a result.

Uncategorized

One Good Show

My family enjoyed watching the updated “Little House on the Prairie” recently on ABC’s Wonderful World of Disney. It was a five-part, six-hour mini-series that more closely followed the book than the ’70s TV version. This show was well-acted, entertaining, and good viewing for the whole family. I can’t remember the last time there was a show on network television that I could sit down and watch with my two daughters (ages 4 1/2 and almost-2) without worrying about the content.

Some of the things that are worth special mention: the adults were adults and the kids were kids. Unlike most shows today, the kids were not smartalecs, but respectful of their parents and other adults. They were well-behaved (though not perfect), and loved each other and their parents. The parents were hard-working and competent, and you could tell they loved each other and their children in the tender moments as well as when they faced adversity. The story dealt with American Indians, settlers’ sentiments toward them, and the government’s treatment of them in a balanced way — showing that some settlers were afraid of them, some were wanting to coexist with them, and some hated them, but all had various degrees of ignorance about them. It also showed that there were good and bad Indians just like there are good and bad people of all races, but that overall, they really just wanted to preserve their way of life and often didn’t know which white people to trust.

I wish the networks would create more good shows like this for families. I commend ABC/Disney for putting this show on the air. Now my four-year-old wants to be Laura Ingalls! 🙂