A Light on Access 

Thank you so much for the time and thoughtfulness you spent on your Channel 95 story. It's rare to find a story on public access these days that takes the time to treat its subjects with respect, and to get even the rough details of the landscape correct.

I don't know firsthand the Channel 95 details, but, having been in the access television field more than 30 years, I can tell you that your story is one of the best ones on the struggles of community television I've ever seen.

I don't have Richmond's Channel 95 on my Virginia map or listed in my database at Community Media Database yet, because it's managed by the cable operator, and that's a management-type class on which I'm presently missing data. (But now I'll be adding it.)

A preferred solution for Channel 95's troubles might be for the city to require in its next cable franchise renewal that Comcast give management of the channel to a nonprofit corporation, such as exists in Charlottesville, Arlington and Fairfax County. And yes, then some of the cable fees Richmond collects from Comcast could go to the access channel — at least for facilities and equipment.

Rob McCausland
Community Media Database

>

Tags:

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

  • Re: Opinion: Sorry "Pet Parents," But Your Animals Are Not Your Children

    • To be fair, I have no idea who this guy is, but I don't think…

    • on September 24, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: Sorry "Pet Parents," But Your Animals Are Not Your Children

    • What a dumb thing for Style to publish. Shameless clickbait bullshit.

    • on September 22, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: Sorry "Pet Parents," But Your Animals Are Not Your Children

    • I agree Mr. Katz

    • on September 22, 2016
  • More »
  • Copyright © 2016 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation