PEABODY — During last week’s City Council meeting, Councilor-At-Large Jon Turco spoke about Peabody Access Television and a proposal from the State Legislature to allow a user fee similar to what is received through cable providers like Comcast.
“That fee generally funds community television, our local channels, and our local shows, the coverage of these Council meetings, and other meetings for Peabody TV. Since streaming services do not have that fee, the Peabody Access Television has seen a decrease in funding, which makes them a bit nervous as to whether they’ll be able to continue their operations at full capacity,” Turco said.
He continued that Peabody TV was hoping to receive support from the Council for the current pieces of legislation.
The station sent in a letter they hoped the Council would pass on, saying, “The Peabody City Council would like to request favorable action on bills H.91 and S.41 titles An Act to Modernize Funding for Community Media Programming.” The note highlighted the drop in subscribers, leading to a lack of funds. It also highlighted the work the station has done for the City and how residents rely on their coverage.
“Just for some clarity that the fee involved in that is up to 5% on the digital services. That’s in the legislation. With that, I would support that. I would hope that you would support that,” Turco said.
Councilor Craig Welton was the first to comment on the matter, asking for clarification on if the up to 5% fee would be requested of the streaming services or the customers who have streaming services.
Peabody TV Production Manager Jim Palmer went to the podium to answer Welton’s question.
“It’s based on the gross annual revenues of the streaming services, which is the way it’s proposed, so similar to how Comcast is funding Peabody TV. It’s 5% of their gross revenues. The proposal is a similar charge for the public rights away out of the streaming services,” Palmer said.
Welton said he was concerned the fees would be passed on to the customers. “I’m not familiar with how the legislature is worded. … Is there provision in there that limits the ability to increase fees to customers that you’re aware of?” he asked. “I just don’t want the 5% to be carried over and pushed onto our residents.”
Palmer said he isn’t sure if there is a preventative measure in the legislature. He said the Cable Act was originally written not to have those fees passed on, but he isn’t sure what this legislation involves.
Turco said he just wants to support keeping Peabody TV viable and that he, too, has that fear that the fee will be passed on to subscribers. “The alternative is not to have Peabody Access Television. Honestly, weighing those out, I would gladly pay the fee because I think it provides a great service, but I do understand your concerns,” he said.
Turco said he’d be willing to add Welton’s condition that the fees do not get transferred directly to users.
Councilor-At-Large Anne Manning-Martin shared the same concern and did not believe it would be possible to suggest or mandate what the state does with the bill regarding the fee being given to consumers. “Of course it’s going back to the consumer,” she said. She added she could not get behind the people of Peabody getting hit with another bill.
“I’d be more inclined to support actions or bills by Sen. (Joan) Lovely and Rep. (Thomas) Walsh that went after Comcast for their practice and their unreasonable fees. They’re just out of control and everyone knows it,” she said.
The motion was made to approve a letter to support the legislature, with the addition that fees should not be pushed onto customers. A roll-call vote was called, and the motion carried 10-1, with Manning-Martin being the lone no vote.
