Akaku V DCCA

Comment

Comment by digitaleye on May 11, 2008 at 9:39am

20 years have passed since the law providing for PEG Access Organizations in Hawai'i was passed (HRS 440g), yet nowhere in statute, administrative rules, franchise agreements, or contracts is there a provision that requires PEGs to create and enforce rules that do not abridge freedom of speech, quite the contrary. DCCA CATV administrative rule HAR 16-131-32 requires the "cable operator" to provide at least one specially designated noncommercial "Public Access Channel" available on a "first-come, nondiscriminatory" basis. There is no "specially designated" "Public Access Channel" in any of the four local franchise areas (LFA). Instead, DCCA has mandated the "cable operator", not the PEGs, to designate 2 channels as "Educational Access Channels" leaving the Public and Government to compete for space on the remaining channels. LIVE programs can preempt taped programs. Most Government programming is LIVE. At a recent Cable Advisory Committee meeting the DCCA director Reifurth asked the committee and the PEGs if it made sence for PEGs to provide at least one "Public Access Channel" on a first-come, nondiscriminatory basis as is required of the "cable operator".They appear to have decided it makes no sense. I have posted the video of that meeting online as well. I hope this is at least food for thought. I will expand if desired.

FYI 6 of 9 of 'Olelo's BOD have historically been appointed by DCCA. All Hawai'i PEGs are non-membership. DCCA maintains they still have the authority to appoint the majority and cite HRS 440g-12(a), which also refers to the "cable operator". There is also a clause in Decision & Order No. 154 (D&O, aka franchise agreement) 154 section 5.5 Access Organization
that mandates the majority be appointed by DCCA. Judge August recognized there is no administrative rule to designate the PEGs. With DCCA CATV division's full time attorney, and the 132 lawyers available to them in the AG's office, and the PEGs with their 100 grand plus a year attorneys, are all remiss in making sure all applicable Law is in order.

Here's an incomplete compilation of all applicable Law. http://hpam.hi808.net/cablereg.htm

IMHO we have a situation where all are pointing the finger at others of having to protect Freedom of Speech. They all appear to prefer plausible deniability rather than owning the responsibility of the task. :(

Comment by Peter Kay on May 11, 2008 at 8:36am

Can you translate what this means for us regular folk to understand?