1   Community  Broadcasting:  Publics,  Participants  and  Policies       History     Radio   Community  radio  is  the  most  prominent  form  of  third  sector  broadcasting  in  the  world.   Originating  in  the  1940s  in  the  Americas  on  AM  frequencies,  the  development  of  non-­‐ commercial  alternative  community  broadcasters  across  the  globe  was  later  facilitated  by  the   FM  frequency  band  in  the  1960s.  This  simple,  low-­‐cost  technology  lowered  the  barriers  to   access,  and  enabled  media  activists  to  acquire  the  means  and  skills  necessary  to  establish  their   own  broadcast  operations,  often  as  illegal  pirate  channels.  In  many  nations,  enabling  legislation   and  policy  was  not  the  first  step  towards  facilitating  the  development  of  a  community  radio   sector,  but  often  times  the  last.  This  “pirate  to  policy”  process  is  a  common  theme  in  the   worldwide  history  of  community  radio.       North  America   In  the  United  States,  not-­‐for-­‐profit  and  educational  channels,  established  by  the  Radio  Act  of   1927  and  mostly  licensed  to  schools,  colleges  and  universities,  were  a  small  counterpoint  to  the   dominant  commercial  sector  which  controlled  the  majority  of  available  frequencies  in  the   postwar  era  (Head,  et  al  1998).  Non-­‐commercial  “community”  radio  began  with  the  iconic   Pacifica  Radio,  licensed  as  KPFA  in  Berkeley,  California  in  1948.  An  outgrowth  of  the  pacifist   post-­‐WWII  movement,  Pacifica  sought  to  provide  ethnic,  labor,  and  socialist  communities  with   an  opportunity  to  share  their  opinions  through  access  to  the  public  airwaves  (Kessler  1984,   Tracy  1996).  Other  community  radios  in  this  period  included  stations  established  in  cooperation   with  the  broadcasting  pioneer  Lorenzo  Milam  in  Dallas,  Portland,  St.  Louis,  and  Seattle  (Barlow   1988).  The  Public  Broadcasting  Act  of  1967  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  “public  service”  sector   in  the  USA,  populated  by  those  same  educational  licensees,  but  now  producing  a  wider  range  of   programs  that  included  information,  opinion,  and  entertainment  as  a  contribution  to   democracy  (Witherspoon,  et  al  2000).       In  the  subsequent  decades,  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  (FCC)  authorized  a  small   cadre  of  licensees  on  the  FM  band  for  non-­‐commercial  broadcasting,  which  enabled  the   community  radio  sector  to  grow  incrementally,  supported  by  the  trade  association  National     2   Federation  of  Community  Broadcasters  (NCFB)1 ,  which  also  facilitated  ongoing  discussions  of   the  nature  and  role  of  community  radio  (Bergethon  1982).  In  2000,  the  FCC  established  Low   Power  FM  (LPFM)  as  an  additional  source  of  access  to  the  FM  spectrum  for  non-­‐commercial   community  broadcasters.  However,  legislation  that  year  driven  by  the  commercial  broadcast   lobby  severely  reduced  the  breadth  of  the  initiative,  restricting  most  of  the  new  licenses  to   rural  areas,  and  awarding  the  majority  of  the  600  new  licenses  to  right-­‐wing  Christian  church   groups  (Sterling  and  Keith  2008).  After  failed  legislative  attempts  in  2005-­‐2009,  the  Local   Community  Radio  Act  of  2010  was  signed  into  law  by  President  Barack  Obama,  further  opening   up  the  LPFM  spectrum  in  cities  across  the  US,  and  resulting  in  the  process  by  which  more  than   1800  new  LPFM  licenses  have  been  granted  since  2013  (Angel  Fire  2015).     In  the  United  States,  not-­‐for-­‐profit  broadcasting  enjoys  little  financial  support  from  government   sources.  Public  service  broadcasters  average  less  than  15%  of  their  revenue  from  government   grants  (Corporation  for  Public  Broadcasting  2012),  and  community  broadcasters  even  less,  as   they  are  tasked  to  develop  revenue  sources  primarily  from  donors  in  their  communities.   Advertising  is  strictly  forbidden,  and  while  sponsorship  is  allowed,  these  channels,  staffed   mostly  by  volunteer  participants,  often  struggle  to  secure  adequate  funding  streams  to  ensure   their  sustainability.     Latin  America   The  history  and  structure  of  community  radio  in  Latin  America  is  acknowledged  to  have  begun   in  1948  with  Radio  Sutatenza  in  Columbia,  followed  shortly  thereafter  by  the  iconic  miners’   radios  in  the  mountains  of  Bolivia  (Gumucio-­‐Dagron  2001).  These  examples  of  participatory   social  movement  media,  owned  and  operated  by  communities,  grew  to  become  a  template  for   how  community  radio  could  serve  as  a  powerful  instrument  for  social  and  political  action   (Downing  2011).  Taking  advantage  of  the  FM  model,  access  and  participation  in  community   radio  grew  exponentially  across  Latin  America  in  the  following  decades,  mostly  as  unlicensed   pirate  radios  due  to  lack  of  effective  policy  in  repressive  political  environments.  Consequently,   many  radios  were  established  in  support  and  defense  of  human  rights  and  social  justice  for   indigenous  peoples,  the  poor  and  marginalized,  workers  and  political  activists.  Individual   nations  developed  unique  variations  on  the  model:  “popular”  radio  in  Ecuador,  “free”  radio  in   Brazil,  “participating”  radio  in  El  Salvador,  “community”  radio  in  Paraguay,  “native”  radio  in   Mexico,  and  “citizens’”  radio  in  Argentina  (Brunetti  2000).  Policy  initiatives  have  greatly   improved  the  environment  in  some  countries;  including  Paraguay  and  Argentina,  but  in  others                                                                                                                   1 The National Federation of Community Broadcasters survived the many financial struggles common to its members, and still serves to represent the interests of community radio in the USA. Their website is here: http://www.nfcb.org/.   3   the  “pirates  to  policy”  process  remains  in  place.  On  the  whole,  community  radio  continues  in   2015  to  be  an  important  institution  across  Latin  America,  as  evidenced  by  the  2010  AMARC   Conference  in  La  Plata,  Argentina,  attended  by  more  than  300  community  radio  members  from   Latin  America  (AMARC  2011).     Australia   Community  broadcasting  history  in  Australia  is  important  due  to  its  early  implementation  of  an   enabling  nationwide  policy,  and  also  to  its  overall  success  as  a  primary  sector  of  the  nation’s   media  landscape.  Following  initial  recognition  of  community  radio  in  1974,  the  landmark   Broadcasting  Services  Act  of  1992  established  the  legality  and  legitimacy  of  community   broadcasting,  allocating  frequencies,  facilities  and  funding  for  the  creation  of  this  third  sector  of   community  channels  (Rennie  2006).  The  result  was  an  immediate  and  incremental   development  of  community  radio  stations  on  the  FM  band  across  Australia,  serving  a  broad   range  of  diverse  communities.  The  Community  Broadcasting  Foundation  of  Australia  (2015)   estimates  that  in  2014  more  than  400  community  radios  are  operating,  staffed  by  25,000   volunteers,  and  funded  by  a  mix  of  government  grants,  sponsorship,  and  donations.       Africa   The  societal  paradigms  that  contributed  to  the  typologies  of  community  radio  in  Latin  America   in  the  20th  century  also  were  present  on  the  continent  of  Africa.  Dysfunctional  governments,   repressive  regimes,  lack  of  overall  infrastructure  development,  and  mismanagement  of   resources  stunted  the  growth  of  licensed  community  radio  (Meyers  2011).  A  resilient  form  of   local  community  FM  radio  originated  and  developed  organically  across  the  African  continent  in   the  1970s  and  1980s  focused  less  in  Africa  about  political  ideology,  and  more  about  community   development.  In  this  difficult  environment,  foreign  aid  agencies  and  international  media   activists  also  introduced  the  ICT4D  model2 :  community  radios  constructed  and  funded  by   external  sources  as  seedlings  and/or  surrogates  for  local  community  radios.  While  providing   initial  benefits  to  many  communities,  this  model  has  proven  quite  difficult  to  transition  to  local   ownership  and  sustainability  (Fraser  and  Estrada  2002).  Several  nations,  however,  have  seen   consistent  development  and  growth  of  the  medium.  A  prime  example  is  the  Republic  of  South   Africa,  where  in  the  post-­‐apartheid  era,  President  Nelson  Mandela  oversaw  the  creation  of  a   vibrant  community  radio  sector  (Valentine  2013)  of  more  than  75  radios  that  continues  to   operate  in  2016  with  the  support  of  enabling  policy  in  the  form  of  large  frequency  allocations,   facilities  and  partial  funding  schemes  (Mansell  and  Raboy  2011).                                                                                                                     2 ICT4D is an acronym commonly used by international aid agencies to denote “information and communication technology for development”.   4   Asia   Isolated  examples  of  community  radio  development  can  be  found  in  Asia,  for  example  in  Nepal,   Bangladesh,  and  Indonesia.  These  radios  are  primarily  similar  to  African  models  of  ICT4D  media   development  by  NGOs  resulting  in  radios  and  sectors  without  effective  models  for  independent   sustainability.  In  India,  a  major  initiative  to  develop  a  country-­‐wide  community  radio  sector  was   approved  by  the  government  in  2010,  establishing  the  recognition  and  legalization  of   community  radio.  Although  hampered  at  times  by  restrictive  terms  and  fees,  the  process  of   awarding  licenses  and  granting  access  to  broadcast  frequencies  has  continued  apace,  with  the   goal  of  building  out  a  sustainable  community  radio  sector  with  the  projected  capacity  to   contain  up  to  5,000  individual  radio  channels  (Pavarala  2015).  In  2013,  The  media  regulator   reported  1,200  applications,  428  letters  of  intent  for  licensing,  148  radios  licensed  and   operating,  and  227  applications  in  process  (India  Ministry  of  Information  and  Broadcasting   2013).       Europe   Unlike  the  dominant  commercial  broadcasting  ethos  in  the  USA,  public  service  state-­‐run   broadcasting  monopolies  for  radio  and  television  existed  across  Western  Europe,  both  before   and  after  WWII,  and  right  through  to  the  end  of  the  century  (Burns  1998,  Shiers  &  Shiers  1997).   Examples  such  as  the  British  Broadcasting  Corporation  (BBC),  Radiodiffusion  Television   Francaise  (RTF),  Arbeitsgemeinschaft  der  öffentlich-­‐rechtlichen  Rundfunkanstalten  der   Bundesrepublik  Deutschland  (ARD),  and  Osterriech  Rundfunk  (ORF)  were  seen  by  policy  makers   as  adequately  fulfilling  the  public’s  need  for  information,  opinion,  and  entertainment   (Abramson  1987).  The  exclusivity  of  public  service  state-­‐run  broadcast  radio  and  television   monopolies  throughout  Western  Europe  was  eventually  dismantled  in  favor  of  a  “public  vs.   private”  dichotomy.  The  process  brought  with  it  the  establishment  of  private  commercial   channels,  and  the  formation  of  lucrative  national  (and  local)  commercial  media  markets,  often   dominated  by  a  select  few  large  corporate  operators.  Notably,  Austria  was  among  the  very  last   European  states  to  open  their  broadcast  spectrum  to  private  broadcasters,  ending  the   monopoly  of  ORF  in  1995  (Purkarthofer,  et  al  2010).  This  new  paradigm  of  radio  and  television   broadcast  spectrums  now  controlled  by  either  government  or  commercial  interests  was  a   catalyst  in  the  demand  for  a  third  way;  one  that  afforded  access  and  participation  for  ordinary   citizens  and  their  communities  (Lewis  and  Booth  1989,  105).       The  1960s  and  1970s  brought  the  rise  of  leftist  counterculture  values,  politics  and  lifestyles  to   Western  Europe;  prompting  many  communities,  lacking  access  to  the  broadcasting  airwaves,  to   subvert  the  dominant  broadcast  paradigm  by  constructing  their  own  unlicensed  pirate  radio   broadcasting  stations.  These  alternative  radios  gained  substantial  audiences  and  support  from   communities,  and  while  still  largely  unlicensed,  formed  the  origins  of  community  radio  in     5   Europe  (Peissl  2013).  The  legalization  of  community  radio  beginning  in  the  1970s  and   continuing  across  Western  Europe  through  to  today  has  established  the  sector  as  a  viable  third   way  of  radio  broadcasting  (see  Figure  3).       In  Central/Eastern  Europe,  the  post-­‐WWII  authoritarian  paradigm  that  predominated  the  region   also  exerted  absolute  control  of  civil  societies  and  media  environments;  leaving  listeners  and   viewers  with  only  state-­‐run  broadcasters  producing  mostly  tightly-­‐controlled  propaganda.   Some  outliers  did  manage  to  spring  forth  on  FM  frequencies  as  pirate  radios,  such  as  Radio   Student  in  Ljubljana,  Tilos  Radio  in  Budapest,  and  Radio  Stalin  in  Prague  to  name  a  few.  Overall,   community  broadcasting  in  the  post-­‐authoritarian  states  of  Central/Eastern  Europe,  even  a   generation  after  the  transition,  still  has  not  developed  as  a  recognized  sector  of  erstwhile   pluralistic  media  environments  (Doliwa  and  Rankovic  2014).  One  exception  is  Hungary,  where  a   community  radio  sector  was  legalized  in  1995  (Molnar  2014),  but  struggles  to  survive  today   under  the  policies  of  the  current  Hungarian  government  (Varga  2015).         6     Figure  3:  Community  Radio  in  the  European  Union  2008  (Buckley  2009)       United  Kingdom   In  the  United  Kingdom  (UK)  the  1972  Sound  Broadcasting  Act  broke  the  BBC  monopoly  and   unlocked  the  radio  spectrum,  authorizing  the  licensing  and  development  of  private  local  radio,   albeit  mostly  commercial  radio  for  many  years  (Scifo  2011).  These  first  local  FM  radios  in  the  UK   failed  to  meet  the  most  basic  of  community  radio  criteria  as  presented  by  the  scholar  Peter   Lewis  (1977),  which  led  to  further  discussions  arguing  for  the  legalization  of  the  hundreds  of   pirate  radios  operating  across  Britain,  including  the  famous  offshore  pirate  ships  of  the  1960s,     7   and  in  1983  the  formation  of  the  Community  Radio  Association  (CRA)3 .  The  1990s  saw  the   development  of  a  small  group  of  legally  licensed  local  radios,  but  without  the  benefit  of   comprehensive  legislation  and  funding,  these  channels  faltered,  and  the  community  radio   sector  remained  chiefly  the  province  of  unlicensed  pirates.  That  changed  when  the  newly   created  Office  for  Communications  (OFCOM)  in  2004  began  the  establishment  of  a  genuine   community  radio  sector  in  by  incrementally  awarding  106  new  broadcast  licenses,  many  to   ethnic  and  marginalized  communities,  over  the  next  several  years.  By  2010,  more  than  200   licensed  community  radio  were  broadcasting  on  terrestrial  frequencies  across  the  UK,  and  the   OFCOM  2015  annual  report  listed  233  community  radios  currently  on  air  (OFCOM  2015)   including  stations  in  England,  Wales,  Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland  (see  Figure  4).  This  new   aggressive  licensing  initiative  however,  is  not  accompanied  by  any  significant  government   funding  mechanism,  leaving  community  radio  to  develop  private  revenue  streams  such  as   donations  and  advertising  for  their  sustainability  (Buckley  2009).                                                                                                                                       3 Originally founded as the Community Radio Association, the organization in 2015 is known as the Community Media Association, and continues to support community broadcasting in the UK. You can view it here: http://www.commedia.org.uk/.   8     Fig  4:  Community  Radio  Stations  in  the  UK  2015    (OFCOM)   FM AM COMMUNITY RADIO IN THE UK Updated: Sept-15 Angel(Havant) GTFM Hitmix Cross Rhythms HFM Kemet Takeover The Eye Faza Dawn Ikhlas Insight Awaz Sunny Govan Revival Angel(IOW) Skyline Gold Express Unity BCB BradAsian Phoenix Future Scilly shmu Asian Fever Unity NewStyle,The Hillz Big City The ‘Bridge WCR Gulshan Failte BFBS Lisburn IUR Down Lionheart NE1 Seaside Gloucester Youthcomm West Hull Reverb BFBS Col. Cross Rhythms (Plymouth) Forest Greater London Desi R– Southall Hayes FM - Hayes Bang – Stonebridge & Harlesden NuSound R – Newham Resonance FM – C London Voice of Africa - Newham Westside CR – Southall Rinse FM – Inner London Reprezent – S London Insanity - Egham Betar Bangla – Tower Hamlets Asian Star Phoenix Gtr London CSR Tempo Black Diamond Castle BFBS Edinburgh BCfm Teesdale Branch Verulam Diverse LaB Inspire Castledown BFBS Sal.Plain Siren Ipswich Calon Hope Cambridge CAM BFBS Aldershot Cross Rhythms Eden BRFM Saint 10Radio Source RSAB Soundart BRFM Tircoed Somer Valley Ujima Glastonbury Phonic Swindon Hot Bro Bangor Bute Island Alive Speysound Drive Aldergrove & Antrim Holywood Mearns Celtic Music Pulse Brick Dunoon Blast Lisburn’s 98FM 3TFM Spice CV Spark Hartlepool Drystone BFBS Catterick Bishop Sine TMCR Vixen Tudno Point City Beat Preston Chorley MoorlandsHalton KCC Live Canalside Manchester & N Cheshire Salford CR All FM – South central & East Manchester Wythenshawe FM Tameside CR Pure R – Stockport Bolton FM Legacy – Hulme North Manchester FM Gaydio - Manchester Unity Radio – central Manchester R Warrington Heritage CR – Manchester Bury CR Crescent Oldham Manc. & N Ches. Lincoln City Gravity Akash JCom Redroad Erewash Sd Amber Sd Takeover Tulip TCR Ambur Raaj Switch Wirral Kohinoor Demon EAVA Plus Hermitage Inspiration Penistone Cardiff Corby Felixstowe Blyth Valley Zack RWS Leisure Biggles HCR In2Beats AHBS Sunlight Academy Thanet Academy Folkestone Awaaz Meridian Uckfield Seahaven BGWS Marlow Voice 1 Ummah Destiny Vibe Susy The Hillz Gateway Frome WCR Fantasy An Rèidio HubPenwith CHBN Flame Môn Glan Clwyd AIR Tone Apple Access Pulse The Voice Bay Abbey BFBS Blandford Winchcombe Bradley Stoke Kane Camglen Nevis Crystal FM East Coast KYFM Irvine Beat TD1 KCR Deveron Bridge fUSe Belfast Zetland Dales Pendle Cando Koast Sheffield Live Link Quay Beverley Victoria Beyond Ribble W Wolds Sangam BFBS Stafford Stafford Nova FM Newark IMAN Endeavour NNBC BFBS Cott. Peterborough Salaam Black Cat MKFM Secklow Sds Brecks Park Castle Harbour Colne FunkySX Chelmsford   9       France   Thanks  to  legislation  by  parliament  in  the  1980s,  France  can  lay  claim  to  one  of  the  most  vibrant   community  radio  sectors  in  the  world,  with  over  600  channels  operating  across  the  country   licensed  on  FM  frequencies,  and  supported  by  government  funding  (Buckley  2010).  Assimilating   the  former  unlicensed  pirate  radios  of  the  leftist  counterculture,  the  sector  includes  a  mix  of   community  or  “associative”  radios  serving  ethnic  and  marginalized  communities,  as  well  as   those  promoting  political  and  ideological  philosophies,  and  operated  by  local  not-­‐for-­‐profit   organizations  (Cheval  2012).  The  competitive  funding  model,  paid  by  a  portion  of  the   commercial  radio  advertising  revenue  pool,  typically  provides  more  than  half  the  annual   revenue  for  an  average  radio,  and  is  historically  the  oldest  continually  functioning  public   funding  mechanism  for  community  media  in  Europe.       Italy   Instability  and  fragmentation  of  politics  in  Italy  and  the  resulting  dysfunction  of  media   regulation  has  resulted  in  a  similarly  unstable  and  fragmented  non-­‐commercial  alternative   broadcasting  environment  in  Italian  society  for  the  past  50  years.  The  1975  Reform  Law,   coupled  with  a  series  of  court  decisions,  effectively  broke  the  state  broadcasting  monopoly,  and   legalized  private  broadcasting  for  the  first  time  (Scifo  2016).  Those  actions,  not  accompanied  by   effective  regulatory  measures  or  enforcement,  unleashed  a  wave  of  haphazard  commercial   broadcast  development  (Kelly,  et  al  2004).  The  1990  Broadcasting  Act  recognized  “community”   broadcasters  as  not-­‐for-­‐profit  entities  and  as  “expressions  of  particular  cultural,  ethnic,  political   religious  instances”  (Commissione  di  vigilanza  servizi  radiotelevisivi  1990).  Barbetta  (1997)   conducted  research  of  the  private  radio  sector  in  Italy  that  identified  associations  representing   more  than  500  radios  affiliated  with  the  Catholic  church,  about  20  associated  left-­‐wing  radios,   and  4  large  independent  radios,  led  by  Radio  Populare  in  Milan.  Despite  the  presence  of  policy,   the  paradigm  for  radio  and  television  broadcasting  in  Italy  remains  one  of  dysfunction,  as  many   community  radios  operate  without  licenses,  and  struggle  to  survive  in  an  environment  rife  with   political  interference,  corruption  and  economic  uncertainty  (Radovan  2007).       Netherlands   Unlike  most  countries  where  community  radio  and  community  television  originate  and  evolve   in  distinctly  differing  media  ecosystems,  both  forms  are  inextricably  linked  together  in  the   Netherlands.  The  Media  Act  of  1987  affirmed  the  earlier  establishment  of  locally  owned  and   operated  local  community  radios,  televisions  and  even  the  entire  cable  TV  systems  (Huizenga   2002).  This  so-­‐called  “Dutch”  model  of  local  government-­‐supported  community  channels     10   combined  elements  of  the  public  service,  open  channel,  and  public  access  models;  mandated   by  national  government  policy,  and  supported  by  additional  revenue  sources  including   advertising,  sponsorship  and  donations  (Buckley  2010).  The  resulting  community  broadcasting   environment  is  robust,  with  more  than  393  community  broadcasters  in  the  Netherlands  in   2015,  with  multiple  channels  offering  a  diverse  spectrum  of  programming  in  small  towns  and   the  major  cities  (deWit  2016).     Germany   The  community  radio  sector  in  Germany  began  with  the  1977  founding  of  Radio  Dreyeckland  in   Freiburg  as  an  unlicensed  pirate  radio  by  anti-­‐nuclear  activists,  and  in  1988  became  the  first   licensed  non-­‐commercial  local  Freie  Radio  (free  radio)  in  Germany.  The  German  media   landscape  is  noted  for  its  fragmentation,  as  each  of  the  16  Lander  (federal  states)  has  its  own   media  regulations  and  media  regulator,  creating  distinct  media  environments.  Subsequently,   the  community  broadcasting  sector  is  also  highly  fragmented  and  comprised  of  numerous   forms,  including  educational,  campus,  open  channels,  and  non-­‐commercial  local  broadcasters   (see  Figure  5).  The  distinction  between  philosophies  of  the  free  radios  versus  the  open  channels   in  Germany  is  a  source  of  much  debate  among  community  media  advocates  and  practitioners   (Coyer  and  Hintz  2010).  In  2015,  the  Bundesverband  Freier  Radios  (Free  Radio  Association)4  lists   31  members  including  some  new  projects  and  online  radios  (Figure  5).  Funding  mechanisms  are   generally  supported  by  a  small  percentage  of  the  user  fee  charged  to  each  household,  collected   on  a  national  level,  then  distributed  by  the  federal  level  media  regulators.                                                                                                                     4 The Bundesverband Freier Radios list of members is here: http://www.freie-radios.de/radios/adressliste.html.   11   OK NKL SBF BRF/C AFEL CR/CTV Total Baden6 Wurttemberg 12 5 17 Bayern 3 4 16 23 Berlin6 Brandenburg 1 1 2 Bremen 1 1 Hamburg 2 1 3 Hessen 4 7 11 Mecklenberg6 Vorpommen 5 1 6 Niedersachsen 15 15 Nordrhein6 Westfalen 30 1 13 44 Rheinland6Pfalz 20 20 Sachsen 3 1 4 8 Sachsen6Anhalt 7 2 9 Schleswig6 Holstein 4 4 Thuringen 7 3 10 Total 41 31 30 24 11 36 173 OKT=TOpenTChannelTTVTorTRadio;TTNKLT=TNon6CommercialTLocalTRadio;T SBFT=TCitizensTBroadcastTService;TTBRF/CT=TCommunityTBroadcaster;T AFELT=TEducationalTBroadcaster;TTCR/CTVT=TCampusTRadioT/TTV     Figure  5:  Citizens’  Media  in  Germany  (Bundesverband  Offene  Kanale  2015)         Television   The  Australian  scholar  Ellie  Rennie  (2003)  identified  three  major  themes  that  greatly  influenced   the  origins  and  development  of  community  television  worldwide:  access  and  freedom  of   speech  in  the  USA  and  Canada  which  led  to  the  cable-­‐access  model,  access  versus  quality  of   program  output  in  the  open  channels  of  Europe,  and  the  role  of  information  and   communication  technology  for  development  in  support  of  social  change  in  the  “global  south”.   While  the  technology  for  production  and  delivery  of  terrestrial  and/or  cable  television   programs  has  been  known  throughout  the  world  since  the  1930s,  the  actual  implementation  of   television  broadcasting  for  much  of  the  world  has  been  primarily  that  of  commercial  and  state-­‐   12   run  channels  (Abramson  2003).  For  a  variety  of  reasons,  including  technological,  economic,   social  and  political  factors,  the  development  of  a  true  community  television  sector  has  occurred   in  a  precious  few  societies.       The  limited  availability  of  frequencies  for  terrestrial  delivery,  the  substantial  costs  associated   with  production,  and  the  recognized  political  power  of  the  medium  have  all  contributed  to  the   lack  of  development  for  community  television,  especially  in  the  less-­‐developed  societies  of  the   southern  hemisphere,  where  community  radio  has  instead  gained  strong  footholds.   Consequently,  a  history  of  community  television  is  dominated  by  the  public  access  PEG   channels  of  the  USA  and  Canada  (Engelmann  1996),  and  by  the  open  channels  and  independent   television  stations  of  Europe  and  Oceania.  In  these  nations,  it  has  been  the  combination  of   economic  prosperity,  functional  governments,  proliferation  of  broadcast  media  forms,  and  the   enactment  of  enabling  policy  that  have  been  instrumental  in  their  development  of  community   television.  These  viable  community  television  sectors  thus  form  the  background  for   understanding  the  history  of  community  television.     North  America   Much  of  community  television  as  we  know  it  today  began  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  with   the  origin  of  the  cable  access  PEG  television  model.  In  the  1960s  several  early  alternative   television  activists  developed  the  cable  access  channels  concept,  most  prominently  George   Stony,  who  was  instrumental  in  the  inclusion  of  a  cable  access  PEG  requirement  provision  in  the   first  cable  system  franchise  agreement  in  New  York,  NY  in  1970.5  The  cable  access  PEG  model   was  encoded  in  policy  enacted  by  the  USA  Federal  Communications  Commission  (FCC)  in  1969,   and  revised  by  the  FCC  in  1970.  It  included  a  “must  provide”  and  “must  carry”  policy  requiring   every  cable  TV  system  in  the  top  100  USA  television  markets  to  facilitate  3  access  channels:  one   each  for  public,  educational,  and  government  output  (Gillespie  1975).  The  policy  essentially   made  every  cable  system  operator  responsible  to  not  only  construct  and  operate  facilities  for   production  and  delivery,  but  also  to  provide  funds  for  organizational  needs,  training  and   recruitment  of  volunteers  to  staff  the  channels.  This  launched  the  cable  access  phenomenon,   with  new  access  channels  providing  opportunities  for  communities  across  America  to  produce   and  deliver  alternative  content  (Engelmann  1990,  Pool  1973).                                                                                                                         5 You can view an interview about the history of cable access television with George Stoney here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0m0jVXdOA   13   The  legal  jurisdiction  of  the  cable  access  requirement  was  later  changed  by  the  US  Congress  in   the  Cable  Communications  Act  of  1984,  which  handed  the  authority  from  the  FCC  to  local   governments  and  their  individual  franchise  cable  system  agreements  (Starr  2000,  Fairchild   2001).  Coinciding  with  the  proliferation  of  local  cable  access  channels  across  the  country,  the   cable  access  trade  association  Alliance  for  Community  Media  (ACM)  was  formed  to  support,   promote  and  protect  the  interests  of  cable  access  channels.  The  USA  cable  access  PEG  model   continued  to  thrive  into  1990s,  and  reflective  of  40  years  of  favorable  policy  and  funding   environments  in  the  United  States,  the  various  iterations  of  community  television  in  the  cable   access  model  numbered  greater  than  3000  in  2008,  including  channels  operated  by   independent  not-­‐for-­‐profit  organizations,  local  governments,  or  by  the  franchised  cable  system   operators  (Goldfarb  2008).  For  example,  see  Figure  6  map  of  the  cable  access  and  community   channels  in  the  Chicago,  Il.  metropolitan  area.       14     Figure  6:  Chicago  Area  Cable  Access  Televisions  2015  (Community  Media  Database)     Beginning  in  the  1990’s  non-­‐commercial  television  in  the  USA  experienced  several  challenges  to   its  legitimacy.  The  neoliberal  commercial  model  of  broadcasting  was  prioritized  over  the  public   service  ideal  by  the  broadcast  deregulation  in  the  United  States  Telecommunication  Act  of  1996   (Ali  2012b).  A  similar  dynamic  occurred  in  the  cable  access  sector,  as  new  legislation  initiatives   at  the  state  level,  championed  in  part  by  the  neoliberal  political  organization  American     15   Legislative  Exchange  Council  (ALEC),  in  more  than  20  states,  removed  the  “must  carry”  and   “must  provide”  requirements  in  the  cable  system  operators’  franchise  agreements  (Progressive   2013).  This  trend  has  fueled  the  continued  degradation  of  cable  access  PEG  model,  resulting  in   a  reduction  of  numbers  of  cable  access  channels  in  the  USA.  New  legislation,  the  Community   Access  Preservation  Act  of  20136 ,  has  been  proposed  but  not  yet  approved  in  the  US  Senate  to   restore  the  cable  system  operators’  franchise  fee  requirement  and  guarantee  reliable  funding   for  cable  access  channels.     Similar  in  time  frame  and  events  to  the  USA,  the  origin  of  community  television  in  Canada  is   also  the  story  of  several  prominent  experiments  and  projects  pioneering  the  concept  of  cable   access  TV  (Howley  2005a).  That  lead  to  enactment  of  policy  by  the  Canadian  Radio-­‐Television   and  Telecommunications  Commission  (CRTC)  in  1971  requiring  all  cable  television  systems   operators  to  provide  public  access  channels,  as  well  as  the  facilities  and  organizational  funding   as  needed.  In  parallel  to  the  prolific  growth  of  the  cable  access  channels  in  the  USA,  Canada   also  saw  the  establishment  of  hundreds  of  community  cable  access  channels  across  the  country   in  the  1970s  and  1980s.  These  channels  formed  a  distinct  sector  of  Canadian  broadcast   television,  prospering  well  into  the  1990s,  providing  a  community  alternative  to  mainstream   commercial  and  public  service  offerings  in  cities,  towns  and  indigenous  communities  across   Canada  (Ali  2012a).  They  also  enjoyed  the  support  of  several  regional  community  TV  trade   associations  including  Federation  des  televisions  communities  autonomes  in  Quebec,  and  a   sub-­‐section  of  the  national  trade  association  Canadian  Cable  Television  Association.       In  Canada,  for  nearly  30  years,  cable  access  channels  enjoyed  the  protection  of  national  policy   mandates  for  their  legitimacy  and  funding  through  the  “must  provide”  and  “must  carry”   provisions  enacted  in  1971.  This  dynamic  however,  was  disrupted  in  1997  when  deregulation  in   Canada  deconstructed  the  mandatory  cable  access  model,  resulting  in  substantial  turbulence  in   the  community  media  sector,  and  general  decline  in  the  number  and  quality  of  cable  access   community  televisions.  New  policies  enacted  by  the  media  regulator  CRTC  in  2002  slowed  that   decline.  Recent  initiatives  in  Canada  have  brought  forth  proposals  towards  building  a  network   of  publicly  funded  multiplatform  community  media  centers,  including  the  creation  of  many  new   community  radio  and  television  channels  independent  from  cable  companies.  Since  then,   several  independent  free-­‐standing  community  TV  channels  were  launched,  broadcasting  over                                                                                                                   6 Introduced by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, you can view the text from the Library of Congress here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1244.   16   terrestrial  frequencies  as  well  as  cable,  including  stations  serving  local  communities  in  Alberta,   Ontario,  New  Brunswick,  and  Nova  Scotia  (Timescale  2009).     Australia   In  Australia,  after  several  test  broadcasts  in  the  1980s,  the  Broadcasting  Services  Act  of  1992   legalized  community  television.  The  act  authorized  the  reservation  of  terrestrial  frequencies,   and  funding  mechanisms  for  constructing  community  television  production  facilities.  The   legislation  spawned  a  new  community  television  sector,  which  grew  with  more  than  80  licenses   issued,  and  flourished  in  both  urban  and  rural  environments  with  stations  broadcasting   alternative  programming  often  targeted  to  minority  and  marginalized  communities  (Rennie   2006).  Community  television  in  Australia  saw  a  period  of  expansion  when  in  2002,  the  original   Broadcast  Services  Act  was  amended  by  parliament  to  authorize  several  new  large-­‐coverage   terrestrial  community  TV  licenses,  creating  new  TV  stations  in  Sydney,  Perth,  Brisbane  and   Melbourne.  These  stations  are  currently  operating  with  licenses  and  partial  funding  from  the   national  government.  The  trade  association  Australia  Community  Television  Association  (ACTA)   also  continues  to  support  the  sector  with  advocacy  and  training  for  member  stations  and   participants.  New  Zealand  also  has  a  history  of  community  television,  with  original  independent   channels  broadcasting  on  terrestrial  frequencies,  such  as  Channel  North  TV,  which  developed   from  a  community  center  project,  and  has  maintained  its  output  and  service  to  the  community   through  years  of  policy  changes  challenging  the  continued  sustainability  of  the  channel  (Peters   2015).     Europe   Whereas  cable  television  was  the  main  conduit  for  the  development  of  community  television  in   the  USA,  cable  television  did  not  enjoy  the  same  early  popularity  in  Europe,  with  fewer  cities   wired  for  cable  TV  systems  of  significant  penetration.  Consequently,  erstwhile  television   producers  were  typically  limited  to  terrestrial  frequencies  for  their  access,  where  the  barrier  to   entry  was  substantial  due  to  prohibitive  costs  and  extensive  know-­‐how  requirements,  thereby   limiting  their  opportunities  (Buurma  2013).  Typically  for  community  television  in  Europe,  policy   came  first,  facilitating  and  supporting  the  development  of  new  terrestrial  broadcasting   channels,  often  solving  the  cost  and  know-­‐how  problems  through  government  ownership  and   control  in  the  “open  channel”  model.  With  the  advent  of  the  21st  century,  cable  systems  were   eventually  built  out  with  higher  penetration  rates,  providing  more  opportunities  for  alternative   cable  access  channels  independent  of  government  ownership.       United  Kingdom   As  was  the  case  with  community  radio  in  the  UK,  absent  of  a  specific  policy  enabling  the   development  of  a  genuine  sector,  several  independent  community  televisions  operated  from     17   the  1970s  in  Britain,  including  the  Bristol  Channel,  which  broadcast  as  a  cable  access   community  TV  from  1973-­‐1975  (Bristol  Post  2011).  Some  continue  to  the  present,  resulting  not   from  a  nationwide  mandate,  but  more  directly  from  local  grassroots  civil  society  activism.   Examples  include  Bristol  Television  and  Northern  Visions  TV,  which  has  broadcast  terrestrially  in   Belfast,  Northern  Ireland,  and  Southwark  TV  in  London,  an  online  curated  video  channel.  In  the   1996  Broadcasting  Act,  the  first  temporary  service  licenses  (RSL)  were  authorized  for  local   community  television,  spurring  the  growth  of  the  form.  In  2010,  the  United  Kingdom  media   regulator  Office  for  Communications  (OFCOM)  authorized  the  creation  of  a  community   television  sector  by  opening  some  full-­‐time  local  terrestrial  frequencies  for  television.  While   some  debate  persists  about  the  true  intentions  of  several  of  the  new  licensees,  new  community   televisions  were  launched  in  a  number  of  cities  across  the  UK,  including  Mustard  TV  in  Norwich,   and  Sheffield  Live  TV  in  Sheffield.7  The  Sheffield  organization  is  noteworthy  in  that  it  has  utilized   a  unique  “shareholder”  model  to  raise  funds  for  constructing  and  operating  the  station  (Buckley   2013).     Ireland   The  Republic  of  Ireland,  a  nation  similar  in  size  and  population  to  Austria  and  the  Czech   Republic,  in  addition  to  its  substantial  community  radio  presence,  has  boasted  a  small   community  television  sector  with  licensed  stations  operating  as  of  2013  in  the  cities  of  Cork,   Dublin  and  Nava  (Murray  2015).  Thanks  to  the  2009  Broadcast  Act,  the  channels  were  afforded   “must  carry”  status  on  both  terrestrial  and  cable  delivery  systems,  along  with  competitive   funding  mechanisms  through  the  Sound  and  Vision  Fund8 .  These  government  policies   established  the  channels  as  stable,  relatively  sustainable  entities  serving  a  range  of  community   interests,  similar  to  their  community  radio  counterparts.  Subsequent  reductions  in  funding   from  the  Irish  government,  and  the  lack  of  support  from  cable  system  operators,  has   threatened  the  long  term  viability  of  the  sector.  Recently  Dublin  Community  TV  in  was  forced  to   curtail  its  full-­‐time  broadcasting  and  revert  to  a  reduced  output  model  as  they  seek  new   sources  of  funding  to  continue  operations  (Byrne  2015).     Italy                                                                                                                   7 Co-owned and operated with Sheffield Live Radio, the channel can be seen here: http://web.sheffieldlive.org/ . 8 For more about the Sound and Vision Fund of Ireland, go to http://www.bai.ie/index.php/funding-sectoral- support/sound-vision/.   18   Beginning  about  2002  in  Italy,  a  network  of  small  pirate  televisions  sprang  up  in  urban   neighborhoods  utilizing  open  micro  spaces  in  the  terrestrial  spectrum  to  provide  access  for   communities  to  broadcast  programs.  A  reaction  to  the  dysfunctional  management  of  the   broadcast  spectrum  and  subsequent  dominance  of  large  media  conglomerates,  these   “telestreet”  channels  (Berardi  2003)  flourished  in  cities  across  the  Italy  for  much  of  the  decade.   This  Italian  telestreet  model  is  one  of  the  few  recognized  examples  worldwide  of  pirate   television,  but  unlike  the  radio  “pirate  to  policy”  process,  these  innovative  pirates  did  not  lead   to  the  enactment  of  enabling  policy.  Instead,  the  arrival  of  internet  delivery  for  television   spawned  a  new  model  of  web-­‐based  television  beginning  in  2004,  and  continuing  to  the   present  with  more  than  100  community  televisions  (see  Figure  7)  streaming  programs  on  the   internet,  without  need  for  a  terrestrial  license  (Andreucci  2010).       Figure  7:  Map  of  Italian  web  televisions  (by  province)    (Altra  2009)     19         Germany   The  open  channel  philosophy  in  Germany  in  the  1980’s  can  be  traced  to  the  success  of  cable   access  televisions  in  the  USA  (Linke  2016).  Pilot  cable  TV  projects  in  1984  in  Berlin,  and  1985  in   Dortmund  facilitated  the  creation  of  open  channel  televisions  in  those  cities  as  the  first  in   Germany.  The  open  channel  radios  and  televisions  offered  a  first-­‐come,  first-­‐served  access   policy,  without  any  structured  program  schedule,  with  100%  ownership  and  funding  of   operations  directly  from  the  media  regulator.  The  open  channel  form  has  grown  to  number  41   in  2015  (see  figure  5),  and  evolved  over  several  decades  to  also  include  private  community   ownership,  but  generally  retains  the  original  policy  of  unfettered  access,  limited  curation  of   content,  and  reliable  media  regulator  funding/ownership  mechanisms  (Linke  2016).                                                       20     Abramson,  A.  (2003).  The  History  of  Television,  1942  to  2000.  Jefferson,  NC.:  McFarland.     Ali,  C.  (2012a).  “A  Broadcast  System  in  Whose  Interest?  Tracing  the  Origins  of  Broadcast   Journalism  in  Canadian  and  Australian  Television  Policy,  1950-­‐1963”.  Communication  Gazette,   74(3),  277-­‐297.  Doi:10.1177/1748048511432608     Ali,  C.  (2012b).  “Media  at  the  Margins:  Policy  and  Practice  in  American,  Canadian  and  British   Community  Television.”  International  Journal  of  Communication,  6,  1119-­‐1138.     Alinsky,  M.  (1988).  International  Handbook  of  Broadcasting  Systems,  Westport,  CT.:  Greenwood   Publishing.     AMARC  International  (2011)  “AMARC  Annual  Report  2010”.   http://www.unesco.org/webworld/publications/community_media/pdf/chap7.pdf    Accessed  12.12.2015     Andreucci,  G.  (2010).  “Local  Communities  Online:  Mapping  Local  Web  TV’s  in  Italy”.  Netcom  24-­‐ 2/4,  2010.  https://netcom.revues.org/417  Accessed  14.12.2015     Angel  Fire.  (2015).  “LPFM  Database”.  http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/piratejim/lpfm.html   Accessed  8.12.2015.     Barbetta,  G.  (1997).  The  Non-­‐Profit  Sector  in  Italy.  Manchester,  UK.:  Manchester  Press     Barlow,  W.  (1998).  “Community  Radio  in  the  US:  The  Struggle  for  a  Democratic  Medium.”   Media,  culture  and  society,  v.10  (1998):  81-­‐105.     Bekken,  J.  (1998).  “Community  Radio  at  the  Crossroads:  Federal  Policy  and  the   Professionalization  of  a  Grassroots  Medium.”  In  R.  Sakolsky  and  S.  Dunifer.  (eds.),  Seizing  the   Airwaves:  A  Free  Radio  Handbook.  San  Francisco,  CA.:  AK  Press.     Bergethon,  B.  (1992).  “Growth  and  Change  in  Community  Radio  1950-­‐1980:  Funding,   Programming  and  Community  Involvement”.  Masters  thesis,  Temple  University,  Philadelphia,   PA.       21   Bristol  Post.  (2011).  "Experiment  launched  in  1970s  that  brought  cable  TV  to  city".  This  is   Bristol.  http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Experiment-­‐launched-­‐1970s-­‐brought-­‐cable-­‐TV-­‐city/story-­‐ 11292188-­‐detail/story.html  Accessed  19.12.2015.       Brunetti,  V.  (2000)  “The  Development  of  Community  Media  in  Latin  America.”    UNESCO   http://www.unesco.org/webworld/publications/community_media/pdf/chap7.pdf  Accessed   10.12.2015.     Buckley,  S.  (2010).  Third  Pillar  of  Media  Pluralism:  Community  Broadcasting  in  the  UK  and   Europe.  London  School  of  Economics.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/events/MeCCSA/pdf/papers/SteveBuckley.pdf   Accessed  29.11.2015     Buckley,  S.  (2013).  “Sheffield  Live  TV  Presentation”.  at  Community  Media  Forum  of  Europe   Conference.  Brno,  Czech  Republic.  8.10.2013     Burns,  R.  (1998).  Television:  An  international  history  of  the  formative  years.  London,  UK.:  IEE.     Buurma,  R.  (2013).  Interview  by  author.  Brno,  Czech  Republic.  9.10.2013     Byrne,  J.  (2015).  Interview  by  author.  Dublin,  Ireland.  23.4.2015.     Cheval,  J.  (2013).  “Guess  Who  Was  on  the  Radio  Last  Night?”.  in  Radio  –  Community  Challenges   and  Aesthetics.  G.  Stachyra.  (ed.).  Pp.  53-­‐62,  Lublin,  PL.:  Marie  Curie  –  Sklodowska  University   Press.     Cianci,  P.  (2012).  High  Definition  Television.  Durham,  NC.:  McFarland.     Commissione  di  Vigilanza  Servizi  Radiotelevisivi.  (1990).  “Legge  6  agosto  1990,  n.  223  Disciplina   del  Sistema  Radiotelevisivo  Pubblico  e  Privato”.  (Google  Translated).   http://www.camera.it/_bicamerali/rai/norme/l223-­‐90.htm  Accessed  20.1.2016       Coyer,  K.,  and  A.  Hintz.  (2010).  “Developing  the  Third  Sector:  Community  Media  Policies  in   Europe”.  In  Klimkiewicz,  B.  (ed.).  (2010).  Media  Freedom  and  Pluralism.  Budapest:  Central   European  University  Press.       22   Corporation  for  Public  Broadcasting.  (2012).  “Report:  Alternative  Sources  of  Funding  for  Public   Broadcasting  Stations”.   http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/Alternative_Sources_of_Funding_for_Public_Broadcasting_Stati ons.pdf  Accessed  6.12.2015     deWit,  P.  (2016).  Interview  with  author  (via  Skype).  9.1.2016     Doliwa,  U.  and  L.  Rankovic  (2014).  Time  for  Community  Media  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe.   CMFE.  http://cmfe.eu/wpcontent/uploads/U.DoliwaL.RankovicCEJoC_12.pdf  accessed   13.12.2014.     Downing,  J.  (2011).  The  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Movement  Media.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA.:  Sage   Publications     Engleman,  R.  (1990).  The  Origins  of  Public  Access  Cable  Television  1966-­‐1972.  Columbia,  SC.:   Association  of  Education  in  Journalism  and  Mass  Communication     Engleman,  R.  (1996).  Public  Radio  and  Television  in  America:  A  Political  History.  Thousand  Oaks,   CA.:  Sage.     Fairchild,  C.  (2001).  Community  Radio  and  Public  Culture:  An  Examination  of  Media  Access  and   Equity  in  the  Nations  of  North  America.  Cresskill,  NJ.:  Hampton  Press.     Fraser,  C.  and  S.  Estrada.  (2002).  “Community  Radio  for  Change  and  Development”.   Development  45  (4),  p.69-­‐73.  Society  for  International  Development.  Sage.     Frank,  B.  (2004).  “Changing  Media,  Changing  Audiences.  Communications  Forum  -­‐   Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology”.  http://web.mit.edu/comm-­‐ forum/forums/changing_audiences.html  Accessed  25.1.2016     Gillespie,  G.  (1975).  Public  Access  Television  in  the  United  States  and  Canada.  New  York,  NY.:   Praeger.     Gumuccio-­‐Dagron,  A.  (2001).  “Making  Waves:  Stories  of  Participatory  Communication  for  Social   Change”.  Report  to  the  Rockefeller  Foundation,  New  York:  Rockefeller  Foundation     Head,  S.,  C.  Sterling,  et  al.  (1988).  Broadcasting  in  America.  Boston,  MA.:  Houghton  Mifflin   Company.     23     Howley,  K.  (2005).  Community  Media:  People,  Places  and  Communication  Technologies.   Cambridge,  UK.:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Huizenga,  M.  (2002).  “Convergence  and  Public  Local  Broadcasting  in  the  Netherlands”.  Lecture   presented  at  conference  RIPE2002  Broadcasting  and  Convergence:  Articulating  a  new  Remit.   Helsinki,  Finland     India  Ministry  of  Information  and  Broadcasting.  (2015).  “Facts  and  Figures”.   http://mib.nic.in/demo.aspx   Accessed  20.12.2015.     Kelly,  M.,  G.  Mazzoleni,  and  D.  McQuail.  (eds.).  (2004).  The  Media  in  Europe:  A  Euromedia   Handbook.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA.:  Sage       Kessler,  L.  (1984).  The  Dissident  Press:  Alternative  Journalism  in  American  History.  Newbury   Park,  NY.:  Sage.     Lewis,  P.M.  and  J.  Booth  (1989).  The  Invisible  Medium:  Public,  Commercial  and  Community   Radio.  Basingstroke,  UK.:  MacMillan  Education.     Linke,  Jurgen.  (2016).  Interview  by  author.  Vienna,  Austria.  12.2.2016.     Mansell,  R.  and  M.  Raboy.  (2011).  The  Handbook  of  Global  Media  and  Communications  Policy.   New  York,  NY.:  John  Wiley  and  Sons.     McCausland,  R.  (2015).  “Community  Media  Database  2015”.   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BRcbLK-­‐R8-­‐ BsrqDTDnznED6ZvNkAKtAhIunA6sCjgBE/edit?hl=en&authkey=CMWeo7AO#gid=0  Accessed   15.12.2015     Meyers,  M.  (2011).  “Voices  from  Villages:  Community  Radio  in  the  Developing  World”.  Report   to  the  Center  for  International  Media  Assistance.   http://www.marysophiamyers.org/pdfs%20of%20my%20publications/1%20Voices.pdf.   Accessed  30.11.2015     Molnar,  P.  (2014).  Interview  by  author.  Budapest,  Hungary.  2.6.2014.       24   Murray,  C.  (2015).  Interview  by  author.  Dublin,  Ireland.  23.4.2015     Oakley,  K.  and  J.  O'Connor.  (eds.).  (2015).  The  Routledge  Companion  to  the  Cultural  Industries.   London:  Routledge.     OFCOM  (Office  of  Communications  for  the  United  Kingdom).  (2015).  “Communications  Market   Report”.  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr15/CMR_UK_2015.pdf   Accessed  8.12.2015.     Peters,  C.  (2015).  Our  community  voices:  The  birth  of  community  television  in  Whangarei.   Auckland,  NZ:  Auckland  University  of  Technology.     Peissl,  H.  (2013).  Interview  by  author.  Klosterneuburg,  Austria.  28.11.2013.     Price-­‐Davies,  E.,  and  J.  Tacchi.  (2001).  Community  Radio  in  a  Global  Context:  An  Overview  of   Community  Radio  in  Australia,  Canada,  France,  Holland,  Ireland  and  South  Africa.  Sheffield,  UK.:   Community  Media  Association.     Padovani,  C.  (2007).  A  Fatal  Attraction:  Public  Television  and  Politics  in  Italy.  Lanham,  MD.:   Rowman  and  Littlefield     Pavarala,  V.  (2015).  “Interview  with  Vinod  Pavarala  on  Community  Radio  in  India”.  UNESCO.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlStsTyQjb0  Accessed  12.12.2015     Pool,  I.  (1973).  Talking  Back:  Citizen  Feedback  and  Cable  Technology.  Boston,  MA.:  MIT  Press.     Pringle,  I.  and  B.  Subba.  (2007).  “Ten  Years  On:  The  State  of  Radio  in  Nepal”.  UNESCO.   http://portal.unesco.org/geography/en/files/7991/11966615215State_of_Community_Radio_i n_Nepal_abridged.pdf/State+of+Community+Radio+in+Nepal_abridged.pdf  Accessed  5.2.2016     The  Progressive.  (2013).  “ALEC’s  New  Victim:  Public  Access  TV”.   http://progressive.org/news/2013/03/181562/alecs-­‐new-­‐victim-­‐public-­‐access-­‐tv   Accessed  9.12.2015     Rennie,  E.  (2003).  The  Future  of  Community  Broadcasting:  Civil  Society  and  Communication   Policy.  Queensland,  Australia:  Queensland  University  of  Technology.     Rennie,  E.  (2006).  Community  Media:  A  Global  Introduction.  Oxford,  UK.:  Rowman  &  Littlefield.     25     Scifo,  S.  (2011).  “The  Origins  and  Development  of  Community  Radio  in  Britain  under  New   Labour  (1997-­‐2007)”.  PhD  Dissertation.  London,  UK.:  University  of  Westminster.     Scifo,  S.  (2016).  Interview  by  author.  (via  Skype).  22.1.2016     Shiers,  G.  &  Shiers,  M.  (1997).  Early  television:  A  bibliographic  guide  to  1940.  New  York,  NY.:   Garland.     Shipman-­‐Wentworth,  S.  (2014).  “Pervasive  Internet  Surveillance  -­‐  Policy  Ripples”.  Internet   Society  Policy  Blog.  https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-­‐policy/2014/06/pervasive-­‐ internet-­‐surveillance-­‐policy-­‐ripples  Accessed  31.1.2016     Singer,  A.  (2013).  “AM  /  FM  Radio  Is  Already  Over,  And  No  One  Will  Miss  It”.   http://thefuturebuzz.com/2013/07/16/am-­‐fm-­‐radio-­‐is-­‐already-­‐over-­‐and-­‐no-­‐one-­‐will-­‐miss-­‐it/  -­‐   sthash.NR6zJmHe.dpuf  Accessed  31.1.2016     Starr,  J.  (2000).  Air  wars:  The  Fight  to  Reclaim  Public  Broadcasting.  Boston,  MA.:  Beacon  Press     Sterling,  C.  and  J.  Kitcross.  (2002).  Stay  Tuned:  A  Concise  History  of  American  Broadcasting.   Mahawah,  NJ.:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  and  Associates.     Sterling,  C.  and  M.  Keith.  (2008).  Sounds  of  Change:  A  History  of  FM  Broadcasting  in  America.   Chapel  Hill,  NC.:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press.     Timescape.  (2009).  “Community  Television  Policies  and  Practices  Around  the  World”.   http://www.vcn.bc.ca/cmes/1pages/Community-­‐Television-­‐Around-­‐the-­‐World.htm  Accessed   10.12.2015.     Tracy,  J.  (1996).  Direct  Action:  Radical  Pacifism  from  the  Union  Eight  to  the  Chicago  Eight.   Chicago,  IL.:  University  of  Chicago  Press.     Valentine,  S.  (2013).  “Mandela’s  Legacy  of  Media  Freedom  Stands  its  Ground”.  Committee  to   protect  Journalists.  https://cpj.org/2014/02/attacks-­‐on-­‐the-­‐press-­‐south-­‐africa.php.  Accessed   1.12.2015     Varga,  D.  (2016).  Interview  by  author.  Budapest,  Hungary.  29.1.2016.         26   Witherspoon,  J.  et  al.  (2000).  A  History  of  Public  Broadcasting.  Washington,  DC.:  Current.