Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Fitting The “PEG” Into The Proper Hole On Cable Systems

By Matt McCormick on February 26, 2009
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

FCC calls for comments on complaints from PEG programmers

Virtually all cable systems are required to carry public, educational and governmental (PEG) channels. These are the channels where you find an assortment of city council meetings, homework help sessions, coverage of local festivals and other home-grown programming. The FCC recently invited comments on three separate petitions for declaratory ruling regarding PEG-related carriage issues.

As useful, charming and informative as PEG programming can be, cable operators hardly rank PEG channels up with ESPN, CNN or The Food Network as “must-have” content. Go figure. But Congress has directed that cable systems must carry the PEG channels on their basic tiers, which puts the cable folks in something of a spot.  Recently, a number of cable operators have developed creative ways to fulfill – or at least arguably fulfill – their PEG obligations, while still freeing up channels for other purposes. Some of those methods have drawn the ire of PEG access organizations.

The Alliance for Community Media leads a group of more than a dozen petitioners protesting the approach taken by AT&T on its U-verse systems. Basically, AT&T puts all the PEG programming under Channel 99. After getting to Channel 99, a viewer navigates through a couple of selection screens to get to the desired PEG channel. The petitioners complain that the AT&T “PEG product”, besides being a hassle to navigate, delivers a lousy picture and strips off closed captioning and any secondary audio programming. In a separate pleading, the City of Lansing, Michigan, has voiced similar concerns with the U-verse method.

The third petition, filed by three Michigan communities (including darling Dearborn), asks the FCC to rule whether Comcast’s plan to carry all PEG channels only in a digital format is legal. Comcast’s proposed arrangement would mean that analog subscribers could get the PEG channels only if they were to get a converter box from Comcast.

The proceeding is dubbed MB Docket No. 09-13. Comments on the petitions are due March 9, with the reply comment deadline following on March 24. 

If you would like to weigh in on these issues, let us know if we can be of any assistance.

Photo of Matt McCormick Matt McCormick

Matt McCormick has practiced broadcast communications law for more than 39 years. He has extensive experience in all aspects of FCC regulation of broadcasting. Over the years, he has represented hundreds of clients in their dealings with the FCC, including applicants for new…

Matt McCormick has practiced broadcast communications law for more than 39 years. He has extensive experience in all aspects of FCC regulation of broadcasting. Over the years, he has represented hundreds of clients in their dealings with the FCC, including applicants for new commercial and noncommercial stations, licensees faced with renewal difficulties, stations confronted with FCC enforcement actions and proponents of FM and TV allotment changes and changes in communities of license. He also represented clients in hundreds of transactional matters requiring FCC approval.

Read more about Matt McCormickEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo