Pittsfield Cable Committee OKs RFP to Spectrum

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The cable contract renewal process is moving along with negotiations on the horizon.

The Cable Advisory Committee last week authorized the forwarding of a request for response of ascertainment, or a request for proposal, to Charter Spectrum. This concludes the ascertainment process and moves toward negotiations.

Member Shawn Serre explained that this is a motion to authorize the chair to take a document being formulated by outside counsel to the mayor's office so that it can be submitted to the cable provider to kick off negotiations.

"I want to underscore both that you have done so much work and this is yet another product that came out of your investment of time and effort," Chair Sara Hathaway said to Serre.

"But also I want to point out to people that we are hearing your voices, we really understand your frustration. Cable, the way that it's structured in America and maybe just as a practical matter based on the infrastructure that's required, is a monopoly and we get one cable provider and a lot of people have said, 'Why don't we have some competition so we can get a better outcome for the consumer' and it's just not structured that way so there's not a lot we can do."

What the committee can do, she added, is negotiate the license for the public, education, and government access provider.

"I really feel like Pittsfield's negotiation this time around is going to set the standard for the country, from what I understand," she said. "And I think our lawyer is kind of excited to be working for us and good things are going to come out of this."

Serre, who is the executive director of Pittsfield Community Television, has also heard requests for cable competition but it is largely practicality that keeps Spectrum the only provider in the area.


"It's important for people to understand that there is nothing blocking another provider from coming in and competing with Spectrum," he said.

"They would simply have to build their own plant and run their own wires and then start offering that service. There's nothing that says that they couldn't do that. What happens is it's just impractical."

A survey to garner information about the city's cable needs closed on April 19 with 355 responses. This is combined with two public hearings, one that had council chambers filled with support for PCTV's services to the community.

The 38-question survey included sections about PEG access and items on the cable license. Within the responses, about 68 percent are current cable subscribers and about 92 percent have internet service through Spectrum.

An overwhelming majority, 70 percent, of respondents feel it is important to have a Spectrum customer service office located in Pittsfield, which is required in the current license.

About half of respondents watch PCTV at least once a month and over 41 percent said it is "extremely important" that PCTV provides live and on-demand programming on its website and through its app.  City Council coverage is the most popular programming.

PCTV's asks for the upcoming ten-year contract include: continuing to receive the federal maximum level of five percent of gross annual cable revenues for Pittsfield, securing capital funding, having all programming provided in high definition, being carried on every video streaming service offered, occupying lower channels, and maintaining fiber optics connections between PCTV's facilities and the cable headend.

In the last contract, PCTV was given $313,000 for the capital fund and over the last decade, has added over $650,000 of its own money to it.  It is estimated that $1,991,000 is necessary to continue to provide a level of technical quality and to replace the existing facilities over the next decade.


Tags: cable television,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

SJC: Public Records Petition 'Proper'

Staff Reports
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court in an advisory opinion released Monday found the petition to bring the Legislature and governor's office under the Public Records Law is "proper" as a form of law.
 
"Its principal purpose is not to regulate the internal proceedings or operations of the two Houses," the court wrote. "Instead, its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor, applying the existing public records law to those bodies alongside the other governmental bodies already subject to the law. "
 
The state Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on whether public records petition was a violation of the state constitution. The Legislature is required to act on the matter by May 5; if not, supporters plan to put it on the ballot in November. 
 
Auditor Diana DiZoglio has championed the petition as a measure to bring greater transparency to the workings of state government and as part of her own battle to audit the Legislature. More than 70 percent of voters approved the audit question in November 2024. 
 
The Senate asked the court whether, first, the petition was a law or a rule that would interfere with its internal processes and, second, would it create "new and unprecedented authority" to the courts to determine challenges to records determinations.
 
The court offered "that the petition proposes a law and is therefore properly pending before the Legislature" and, for Question 2, concluded "that the proposed measure does not relate to the powers of courts."
 
The court declined to answer three following questions related to intrusions on Senate authority and General Court authority, and violation of rights of  "deliberation, speech and debate" granted to members and staff.
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories