Abstract
The article takes an in-depth look at the experiences Australia and Canada have had dealing with issues related to the funding and financial regulation of the third or ‘private, non-profit’ sector of broadcasting. Through the analysis of these experiences, recommendations are extracted aimed at providing policy makers and stakeholders from other jurisdictions guidance regarding how to deal with these issues.
Résúme
L’article examine en profondeur les expériences de l’Australie et du Canada pour traiter des questions liées au financement et à la règlementation financière du troisième secteur, ou du secteur « privé à but non lucratif » , de la radiodiffusion. Grâce à l’analyse de ces expériences, des recommandations sont extraites visant à fournir aux décideurs et aux intervenants d’autres juridictions des conseils concernant la façon de traiter ces questions.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag untersucht eingehend die Erfahrungen von Australien und Kanada beim Umgang mit Problemen bezüglich der Finanzierung und finanziellen Regulierung des Dritten bzw. „privaten, gemeinnützigen“ Rundfunksektors. Mittels einer Analyse dieser Erfahrungen werden Empfehlungen abgeleitet, die politischen Entscheidungsträgern und Stakeholdern in anderen Rechtssystemen beim Umgang mit diesen Problemen helfen sollen.
Resumen
El artículo examina en profundidad las experiencias que han tenido Australia y Canadá a la hora de tratar cuestiones relacionadas con la financiación y la reglamentación financiera del sector terciario o “privado, sin ánimo de lucro” de la radiodifusión. Mediante el análisis de estas experiencias, se extraen recomendaciones que tienen como objetivo proporcionar a los responsables políticos y a las partes interesadas de otras jurisdicciones orientación relativa a cómo tratar estas cuestiones.
摘要
对于广电行业第三领域或私人领域或非营利性领域的融资规范, 本文深入考察了澳大利亚和加拿大处理和这一规范相关的问题的经历。为了从其他司法管辖区出发指导政策指定人和利益相关人如何处理这些问题,本文对这些经历进行了分析并提出了一些建议。
ملخص
تأخذ هذه المقالة نظرة متعمقة في التجارب التي أستراليا وكندا تعاملت فيها مع المشاكل ذات الصلة بالتمويل والتنظيم المالي للقطاع الثالث أو قطاع البث “ الخاص، الذي لا يسعى للربح”. من خلال تحليل هذه التجارب، يتم إستخراج التوصيات بهدف تزويد صانعي القرار وأصحاب المصلحة من توجيه ولايات قضائية أخرى بشأن كيفية التعامل مع هذه المشاكل.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Examples include: Ireland (2001), United Kingdom (2004), India (2006), Uruguay (2007), Argentina (2009), Chile (2010) and Spain (2010).
In particular, it should be kept in mind that both Australia and Canada are relatively developed countries and, accordingly, their social and economical conditions differ significantly from those of developing or less developed countries.
Lists can be found at: https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/BroadListRad/Default-Defaut.aspx
Even though they pursue different goals, TSBs and commercial broadcasters can and often find themselves competing with each other for the attention of audiences and revenue from advertisers and/or sponsors.
The concern is that, if not-for-profit licensees see their broadcast stations primarily as fund raising tools, they will adopt practices similar to those of the commercial sector in order maximize income. This would be detrimental to the role TSB should ideally play in broadening access to broadcasting and increasing the diversity of content available to the public.
In the case of India, having a previous history in community work is an eligibility requirement for TSB licences.
Citation refers to the Order as originally adopted, it has since been amended.
Similar restrictions have also been implemented in other European countries (Murphy et al. 2011)
This scheme has, however, been subjected to some criticism because it forces cable providers to pay to carry a service without major appeal to their clients with the cost normally being passed on to the subscribers.
Information regarding the CBF can be found on its webpage: www.cbf.com.au
Information regarding the CRFC can be found on its webage: www.communityradiofund.org
In the case of the CRFC, the guidelines are elaborated by sector representatives but need to be approved by the CRTC as the CRFC benefits from a more formal funding scheme.
For further details, see the CBF Organizational Chart available at the organizations’ official webpage.
For this reason, Australian TSBs strongly opposed this kind of restrictions during the time they were in place (Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 1986)
Another form of quantitative restriction is a regulatory cap on the percentage of their income TSBs can derive from the selling of advertising air-time. However, as noted, this form of quantitative restriction has never been used Australia nor Canada.
For a number of years now, there have been debates in Australia regarding whether nonindigenous community television stations should continue to receive access to spectrum to deliver over-the-air services or transition onto internet only service. The most recent decision is that CTV stations would be allowed to continue as free-to-air services until December 2016 after which they would no longer be granted free access to spectrum. For information see http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2015/09/community-tvlifeline-extended-to-2016.html. Once they transition to other delivery platforms, the nonindigenous community television stations will no longer be subjected to the regulations applicable to terrestrial TSBs in Australia.
References
ACMA. (2008). Community broadcasting sponsorship guidelines.
ACMA. (2010). Community broadcasting participation guidelines.
ACMA. (2011). Community broadcasting not-for-profit guidelines.
ACMA. (2011). Temporary community broadcasting guidelines.
ACMA. Transcript of evidence 29 November 2006 cited in Australia Standing Committee on Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts. (2007). Tuning in to community broadcasting.
AMARC. (2008). Principles for a democratic legislation on community broadcasting. Retrieved from amarcwiki.amarc.org/upload/documents/Principles_Community_Broadcasting_Legislation.pdf.
Australia Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander Commission. (1999). Digital dreaming: A national review of indigenous media and communications: Executive summary.
Australia Broadcasting Amendment Act, 1987.
Australia Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act, 1980.
Australia Broadcasting Services Act, 1992.
Australia Broadcasting Services Amendment Act (No.1), 1999.
Australia Explanatory Memorandum Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), 2002.
Australia Productivity Commission. (2000). Broadcasting report no. 11. AusInfo.
Australia Standing Committee on Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts. (2007). Tuning in to community broadcasting.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. (1986). Report to the minister for communications public broadcasting sponsorship announcements.
Baker, E. (1974). Priorities review staff report on radio. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Baynes, L. (2004). Making the case for a compelling governmental interest and re-establishing FCC affirmative action for broadcast licensing. Rutgers Law Review, 57(1), 235–300.
Brand, O. (2007). Conceptual comparisons: Towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 32, 405–466.
Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. (2010). Rules on advertising and teleshopping.
Buckley, S., et al. (2008). Broadcasting, voice and accountability, A public interest approach to policy, law and regulation. Washingtong DC: The World Bank Group.
Buckley, S. (2008). Community broadcasting: good practice in policy. Law and Regulation: Paper presented at the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day, 2008.
Canada Aboriginal Peoples’ Program. Northern aboriginal broadcasting 2015, from www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1267292195109/1305897413896.
Canada Radio Regulations, 1986.
Castells, I., & Talens, A. (2011). ¿Ni Indígena, Ni Comunitaria? La Radio Indigenista en Tiempos Neoindeginistas [Neither Indigenous, Nor Community? The Indigenist Radio in Neoindigenist Times]. Nueva Época, 15, 123–142.
Chile Law No. 20.433, 2010.
CRTC Decision 75-247.
CRTC, Community channel policy review, Public Notice 1990-57.
CRTC, Community radio policy, Public Notice 2000-13.
CRTC, Distribution of the programming service of aboriginal peoples television network incorporated known as the aboriginal peoples television network (APTN) by licensed broadcasting distribution undertaking, Broadcasting Order 2013-373.
CRTC, Ethnic broadcasting policy, Public Notice 1999-117.
CRTC, Exemption order respecting certain native radio undertakings, Public Notice 1998-62.
CRTC, Order respecting the distribution of the aboriginal peoples television network, Public Notice 1999-70.
CRTC, Policies for community and campus radio, Public Notice 1992-38.
CRTC, Policy framework for community-based media, Public Notice 2002-61.
CRTC, Religious broadcasting policy, Public notice 1993-78.
CRTC, The review of community radio, Public Notice 1985-194.
CRTC. Campus and community radio policy. Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2010-499.
CRTC. Native broadcasting policy. Public Notice 1990-89.
Day, R. (2009). Community radio in Ireland: Participation and multi-flow communication. Hamptom Press.
Forde, S., et al. (2002). Culture commitment community, The Australian community radio sector. Brisbane: Griffith University, Australian Key Centre for Culture and Media Policy.
Foxwell, K. (2001). Quantifying community radio… Some qualifications. Australian Community Broadcasting Series, 1(5).
Fraser, C., & Restrepo Estrada, S. (2001). Community radio handbook. UNESCO.
Gómez, G., Aguerre, C., & Eliades, A. (2009). The invisible gags: New and old barriers to diversity in radio broadcasting. AMARC.
Hitchens, L. (2004). The role of sponsorship regulation in non-commercial broadcasting. Entertainment Law Review, 15(2), 33–41.
India Policy Guidelines for Setting up Community Radio Stations, 2006.
Kern European Affairs. (2007). The state of community media in the European Union. Prepared at the request of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union of the European Parliament.
Khan v Cumberland Community Radio Inc t/as 2CCR-FM [2006] 222 NSWADT 3.
Murphy, K., et al. (2011) Cross-national comparative analysis of community radio funding schemes. Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
Northern Aboriginal Broadcasting—Aboriginal Peoples’ Program. www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1267292195109/1305897413896. Retrieved January, 2015.
OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. (2009). Freedom of expression standards for free and inclusive broadcasting, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II CIDH/RELE/INF. 3/09.
Ofcom. (2010). Regulation of community radio key commitments guidance on changes to key commitments and ensuring compliance.
Palmer, V. V. (2005). From Lerotholi to Lando: Some examples of comparative law methodology. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(1), 261–290.
Price-Davies, E., & Tacchi, J. (2001). Community radio in a global context: A comparative analysis. Community Media Association.
Raboy, M. (2003). Media and democratization in the information society. In B. Girard & S. O Siochru (Eds.), Communicating in the information society (pp. 101–119). UNRISD.
South Africa Broadcasting Act, 1999.
Thomas, E. (1992). Canadian broadcasting and multiculturalism: Attempts to accommodate ethnic minorities. Canadian Journal of Communication, 17(3). Retrieved from www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/676/582.
Thornley, P. (1999). Broadcasting policy in Australia—Political influences and the federal government’s role in the establishment and development of public/community broadcasting in Australia—A history 1939 to 1992. Ph.D., University of Newcastle.
UK Community Radio Order, 2004.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression et al. (2010). Tenth anniversary joint declaration: Ten key challenges to freedom of expression in the next decade.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression. (2009). Annual report to the human rights council, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/4.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression et al. (2007). Joint declaration on diversity in broadcasting.
UNESCO. (2003). Legislation on community radio broadcasting—Comparative study of the legislations of 13 countries. UNESCO.
Uruguay Community Broadcasting Law, 2007.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to extend his thanks to the staff of the Monash University Law Library as well as to A/Prof David Lindsay and Dr. Sharon Rodrick who provided advice of great value to the preparation of the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Méndez Powell, F. Funding and Financial Regulation for Third Sector Broadcasters: What Can Be Learned From the Australian and Canadian Experiences?. Voluntas 27, 2595–2616 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9695-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9695-2