Most jurisdictions delegate the management of public access
to a third party, usually a nonprofit access center, a cable
operator, or local school, to avoid First Amendment problems.(1)
In Hawaii, the State has delegated management to the nonprofit
access organizations.  Senate Resolution No. 65, S.D. 1, asked
the Bureau to ascertain whether these local access organizations
"provide that type of access and programming intended by federal
and state law."  Unfortunately, the law does not explicitly state
what type of access and programming is intended.  One expert in
the field has said that, outside of a general agreement that
there should be adequate channel capacity, technical ability to
air the programs, and equipment and facilities to support use,
that there are no guidelines in terms of content or otherwise.(2)
A review of the history of the federal law will provide some
background and context for this statement and will provide a
framework for the issue.

     The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created by
the Communications Act of 1934.  This Act was intended to
regulate "commerce in communication by wire and radio"; at that
point in time, the cable television industry did not exist.(3)  As
the cable television industry developed, Congress added it to the
FCC's responsibilities.  From 1972 until 1979, the Act mandated
the larger cable companies to provide PEG access.  Oceanic
Television in Honolulu was one of the companies obligated to
provide PEG access.  However, in 1979, the United States Supreme
Court struck down a number of provisions of the Act, including
mandatory PEG access.(4)  The Court based its ruling on PEG access
on the ground that this requirement treated cable companies as
though they were common carriers, which the Act explicitly states
that they are not.

     Thus franchisees with franchise agreements specifying PEG
access were not affected, while franchisees with agreements that
merely required compliance with FCC regulations were relieved
from the duty of providing PEG access.(5)  In 1984, Congress
passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, making PEG
access officially optional:


      A franchising authority ... may require ... that channel capacity
      be designated for public, educational, or governmental use [.]


The importance of PEG access is referred to in the legislative
history,(6) which states that:


      A requirement of reasonable third-party access top cable systems
      will mean a wide diversity of information sources for the public
      -- the fundamental goal of the First Amendment -- without the need
      to regulate the content of programming provided over cable....

      Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the
      speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed
      leaflet.  They provide groups and individuals who generally have
      not had access to electronic media with the opportunity to become
      sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas.
      PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing
      local schools into the home, and by showing the public local
      government at work.(7)


     The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 further explained the rationale:


      Leased access and public access programming uniquely allow
      individuals and groups to communicate their messages to the
      general public.  Educational access allows local schools to
      supplement classroom learning and to reach out to teach those who
      are beyond school age or unable to attend classes.  The government
      channel allows for a local "mini-C-SPAN," thus contributing to an
      informed electorate, essential to the proper functioning of
      government.(8)


     This language indicates that there are two beneficiaries of
PEG access:  the individual speaker, who has a forum for the
speaker's ideas, and the community, which will receive access to
a diversity of viewpoints.  Both sides of this equation are
important; without the speakers, no viewpoint is available, and
without the potential for the community to listen, the expression
of the viewpoint is fruitless.  Some have expressed the opinion
that only the speakers' rights are important, but this lacks
logic, for if the community is not on the receiving end of the
speakers' communications, the speakers might just as well declaim
their views in the privacy of their own living rooms.  The
speakers' rights may receive more support in that the speakers
have a more dynamic role; they must actively participate in
making their voices heard, where the community is passive,
letting the speakers into its homes.

     Hawai'i chose to make PEG access mandatory, but did not
state a reason in the implementing legislation.

     Access can have three components:  (1) the speaker's access
to technology; (2) the speaker's access to the medium; and (3)
the community's access to the diversity of views.  Each of these
elements will be discussed below.

     1.   Speakers' Access to Technology

     This element involves the training and certification, and
access to equipment at the public access centers.  As discussed
in more detail in the individual access organizations' chapters,
training varies widely among the centers.  In the past, 'Olelo
had the longest training schedule, with a thirteen week
technicians course and another thirteen week production course
before one can produce a video (although some individuals can try
to study on their own and pass the latter at the same time as the
former).  The programs at the other access centers were much
shorter -- five weeks before certification and ability to use the
equipment.

     Part of the reason for the brevity of these other courses is
that (1) Ho'ike and Na Leo do not have studios, so that segment
of training is not necessary, and Akaku has a much smaller and
more modest studio, with simpler equipment than 'Olelo, (2) the
equipment in these three neighbor island centers is simpler and
easier to learn, and (3) the production aspect at the neighbor
island centers is minimized.

     While the more detailed training available at 'Olelo may be
helpful in producing a fine quality product, there is a
significant imbalance in the certification requirements that
could and probably does pose a significant stumbling block to
those who want to speak.  There are approximately 300 people on
'Olelo's waiting list, and 194, almost two-thirds that many, on
Akaku's list, even though Maui's population is only about
thirteen percent of O'ahu's.57  While the opportunity to produce
a fine quality program may be gratifying to videophiles, as
stated in 'Olelo's own draft Five Year Strategic Plan:58
"Quality programming is an underlying goal of the corporation and
its producers, but it is not a primary mission.  Concerns about
quality should not override its goals for access and diversity."
(emphasis added)

     'Olelo seems to have realized that their training program as
it was proved to be a stumbling block to wider participation, and
has moved to rectify this through a major revamp of its training
program.  The new program is intended to assure that the
technology is made more available to O'ahu residents.  As this
program was just being initiated at the time this report was
finalized, it remains to be seen how effective it will be.

     A complaint was also received concerning training at Na Leo;
specifically, that some of the training did not comport with the
testing.  Na Leo is in the process of compiling a training
evaluation system.  Attention to the comments received should
assist Na Leo in clearing up these types of complaints. 

     Access to equipment is another facet of this element.  In
general, each of the access organizations uses a first-come,
first-served basis for equipment reservation.  Certain very
expensive equipment, such as 'Olelo's robotic unit, is available
only to those who can provide proof of insurance; given the
robotic equipment's estimated value, this requirement does not
seem excessive, given the other means available of making videos
with 'Olelo's equipment.

     Some independent producers on O'ahu do have questions for
'Olelo about the disposition of missing 'Olelo equipment.  When
asked about this, executive director Richard Turner stated that
all equipment that was taken out of service was either
cannibalized for parts or given to one of 'Olelo's E or G
partners.  While this may indeed be the case, a failure on
'Olelo's part to explain clearly where and when a piece of
equipment is taken out of service feeds into the perception of
certain members of the Community Television Producers Association
that 'Olelo is not being forthcoming.

     There is a certain tension between the access organizations
and the producers about type of equipment.  On one hand,
producers on the Big Island claim that the Na Leo technology is
not up to date; on Kaua'i Ho'ike is criticized for putting money
into equipment instead of providing access (such as in an Open
Mike-type of show); and 'Olelo is open to criticism that its
sophisticated technology overwhelms users who would be perfectly
happy to be able to use a simple Super8 camcorder.  Some of the
access organizations respond to producer complaints with the
observation that public access equipment is not meant or intended
to provide professional-quality service, and that some of these
producers are trying to make a living by using the public access
equipment to shoot projects for which they receive compensation.

     Obviously there is a range of possibilities, and equally
obviously, there are always those who will not be satisfied with
arrangements that they find less than optimum.  However, it is
not clear that the choices being implemented by the various
access organizations are obviously wrong, either.  What does seem
clear is that producers feel that some of the access
organizations are not taking their needs into consideration.  On
the Big Island, for example, representatives of Na Maka 'O Hilo
complain that the edit equipment there has no time codes, without
which precise editing cannot be done.  Na Maka also notes that
there are no Na Leo board members who have production experience.
Na Leo has the least opportunity for public input of any of the
access organizations.  It would not be unreasonable for Na Leo to
allow Na Maka or any other interested producers to present to the
board technical information on their equipment needs, since they
have expertise that the board lacks.  At present, the producers
are limited to three minutes of speech on action items only, and
have trouble even receiving copies of the minutes and notices of
board meetings.  There is no need for the exacerbation of an
already tense relationship by the withholding of information,
when a more fruitful relationship can be developed by the sharing
of views backed by experience.  If the board chooses not to
follow the producers' suggestions, at least it will have done so
in an informed manner.  It is to be hoped that the addition of a
Na Maka member in November 1995 will resolve these problems.

     Na Leo has proposed an arrangement that would seriously
hamper access of its producers to equipment.  In 1995, the board
discussed the option of charging a $5 user equipment fee for each
piece of equipment that it used, along with a refundable $100
equipment deposit.  The purpose of the fees is to provide a self-
insurance pool in the event that a piece of equipment is damaged,
stolen, or lost, and the producer is unable to pay for the repair
or replacement.  This proposal created a storm of controversy
among the producers on the Big Island, who pointed out that (1)
the policy and procedures manual promised that no such fees would
be assessed; (2) the $100 would only cover four percent of the
cost of the camera, a far cry from the full amount needed, (3)
the Big Island community in general is economically depressed and
a $100 fee, even if refunded, and $5 fee for every piece of
equipment to be used each time, is not affordable for many.  None
of the other access organizations in Hawaii charges any kind of
fee or deposit for equipment, and neither do the access
organizations that this researcher contacted in the course of
researching this study.

     The Na Leo board eventually tabled the motion.  The concept
of some type of charge, however, is apparently still being
considered.  It would be hoped that the board would avoid an
alternative that would provide a barrier to public access.

     2.   Access to the Medium

     Access to the medium permits someone with no training to
have his or her views aired.  The classic example of this is the
so-called "Open Mike" show, in which a simple studio set-up is
provided and a person can go in, start the camera, present his or
her viewpoint, and stop the camera.  The presentation is then
broadcast by the station.

     Akaku has had such a program, called Speak out Saturday,
since February 1995.  'Olelo started its program, called O'ahu
Speaks, in August 1995.  Neither Ho'ike nor Na Leo have such a
program, but Ho'ike has only three staff members and Na Leo has
only two at each site plus the general manager.  While this type
of program does involve some staff time, which is in limited
supply, perhaps some kind of arrangement can be made with
volunteer producers to help the access organizations provide this
type of forum.  It might assist the access organizations by
shortening the wait list with the removal of people who just want
an opportunity to be heard, but do not really want to be in the
position of producing videos.

     Some independent producers argued that the access
organizations should not be "in the business of creating video
producers," but should merely provide this type of access only.
This proposal is too extreme.  The ability of video to capture
concepts visually is a powerful tool; the persuasive power of a
"talking head" presenting a brief statement does not compare.
For people who want to communicate their ideas visually, video
production should be an option.  For those who want the medium
without the tedium, the instant gratification of an "Open Mike"
production should also be available, within the constraints of
the access organizations' budgets.

     3.   The Community's Access

     Two separate issues have arisen under this heading.  The
first is the most literal -- the community's ability to actually
see what is being shown.  Problems have arisen in several of the
counties.  On Maui, the signal quality in the West Maui area has
been "poor to unviewable" for a year, and in West Maui the public
access channel is channel number 50, which many older television
sets do not have.  These issues were under discussion in the fall
of 1995; it is unfortunate that their resolution was not cleared
up on a timely basis.

     The Big Island is scheduled to provide an additional PEG
channel in Hilo, but due to planned upgrades at Jones Spacelink,
Na Leo's general manager reported that the cable company would
request a delay in providing this number of channels.  In mid-
November 1995, the Bureau was informed that Jones will
"relinquish" another channel to Na Leo on January 15, 1996.
While a certain amount of leeway may be necessary, the State
should hold a firm line on long-term efforts of cable companies
to decrease their PEG commitment, especially in counties where
the public access organizations have a proven track record.

     While the details of these problems are worked on, the State
can assist the community by making clear to the cable companies
that PEG access is a serious issue to the State, and that poor
signal quality, inability to access a PEG channel, and other
related issues will not be tolerated.

     Another issue related to this topic is whether the access
organizations should actively help foster a diversity of
viewpoints.  Some access organizations are more active, either by
serving the under-served by actively recruiting their
participation, while others sponsor programs, such as political
debates, to assist in presenting a wide range of views.  This has
been described as the "access center as facilitator" versus
"access center as production" unit debate.59  In the facilitator
model, also known as the pure public access model, the
independent producers do all the work and produce the programs
themselves.  Program quality can be a problem.  In the production
unit model, the access organization becomes actively involved by
providing the production crew while the user group provides the
content.  This is more costly and limits the amount of
programming that can be produced with the available staff.

     In Hawai'i, 'Olelo has tried to target under-served groups,
and 'Olelo and Akaku have helped to sponsor programs such as
political debates in the past.  Producers here have complained
about access organizations' more active efforts, but it is not
clear, based on these accepted models, that these efforts are
improper.  It has been alleged that the true motive for these
producer complaints is that fact that some producers try to make
a living from producing the same type of shows, and feel that
these activities by the access organizations deprive them of the
opportunity to produce these shows themselves.  Yet the desire of
independent producers to make money from public access equipment
and facilities should not preclude access organizations from
assisting projects that benefit the public.  Quite the contrary;
in these instances, the right of the community to receive a
diversity of viewpoints should not be bounded by the desires of
producers to be paid for using a public resource.