Community  Broadcasting  –  The  Future       The  demise  of  traditional  radio  and  television  broadcasting,  resulting  from  the  development  of   new  digital  technologies,  has  been  forecast  for  decades  now.  Yet  these  legacy  broadcasters,   including  commercial,  public  service  and  community  types,  have  yet  to  succumb.  The  new   competition  created  by  digital  technology  comes  in  the  form  of  new  terrestrial  delivery   systems,  and  online  streaming  for  curated  linear  content,  and  also  online  social  media   networks.  Community  broadcasting  appears  to  be  in  a  somewhat  unique  position  of  both   strength  and  weakness  in  this  new  media  landscape,  not  only  from  the  point  of  view  of   consumers,  but  also  of  markets  and  regulators.             Traditional  terrestrial  means  of  radio  broadcasting  (via  FM),  and  television  broadcasting  (via   long  wave  and/or  cable  systems)  have  been  the  dominant  technology  in  most  of  the  world   since  the  mid  20th  century  (Alinsky  1988).  Broadcasters,  who  for  generations  were  secure  in   their  positions  mandated  by  licenses  in  a  limited  frequency  spectrum  or  exclusive  cable  system,   now  are  challenged  by  new  technologies  both  in  the  terrestrial/cable  sphere,  as  well  as  online   technology  utilizing  non-­‐terrestrial  internet  protocol  (IP)  delivery.  In  addition,  new  digital  online   applications  have  enabled  the  rise  of  social  media  as  a  viable  alternative  to  traditional  media   forms.     Terrestrial  delivery  technologies  are  evolving,  as  evidenced  by  the  migration  of  terrestrial   television  broadcasts  from  analog  to  digital  service  in  most  of  Europe  and  North  America  in  the   1990s.  Along  with  the  digitalization  of  cable  TV  systems,  television  in  the  traditional   terrestrial/cable  platforms  successfully  improved  the  technical  quality  of  its  broadcasts  by   agreeing  on  a  single  new  digital  technology.  Thus,  high-­‐definition  television  is  now  the  standard   for  much  of  the  developed  world  (Cianci  2012).  Radio  broadcasters,  however,  have  struggled  to   adopt  new  terrestrial  transmission  technologies,  despite  the  implementation  of  terrestrial   digital  technologies  such  as  Digital  Audio  Broadcast  (DAB)1  and  Digital  Radio  Mondiale  (DRM)2   by  regulators  and  practitioners  (Goddard  2010).  The  fragmentation  of  the  sector,  the  efficiency   and  effectiveness  of  FM,  and  the  lack  of  substantial  benefits  in  coverage  or  quality  offered  by   the  new  digital  terrestrial  technologies  have  all  slowed  adoption  (O'Neill  2010).                                                                                                                     1 More  information  about  Digital  Audio  Broadcast  can  be  accessed  here:  http://recnet.com/dab. 2 More information about the radio broadcast technology of Digital Radio Mondiale is here: http://www.drm.org/?page_id=110. For  community  broadcasters,  similar  to  their  counterparts  in  the  commercial  and  public  service   sectors,  the  present  technological  delivery  platforms  for  television  and  radio  appear  to  be   sufficient  to  sustain  the  media  in  the  short  term.  Retaining  FM  and  cable  delivery  systems  is   especially  important  to  community  broadcasters,  as  they  have  limited  resources  to  invest  in   new  transmission  technologies,  and  are  likely  to  be  at  a  disadvantage  to  their  more  powerful   commercial  and  public  service  counterparts  when  competing  for  access  and  control  over  the   new  technologies.  Community  broadcasters  fear  what  is  commonly  referred  to  by  activists  and   practitioners  as  the  "analog  ghetto",  where  the  losers  of  the  competition  for  new  digital   terrestrial  broadcast  transmission  technologies  are  relegated  to  the  old  technologies,  and   facing  potential  shutoff  by  regulators  (Oakley  and  O'Connor  2015).  Meanwhile,  as  the   competition  over  adoption  of  these  new  terrestrial  delivery  technologies  continues,  the   migration  of  consumers  to  IP  for  receiving  (and  delivering)  audio  and  video  programs  increases   every  year  (Frank  2004).     IP  delivery  (via  connection  to  the  World  Wide  Web)  debuted  as  an  extension  of  terrestrial   output  for  radio  and  TV  in  the  latter  20th  century.  Its  continued  growth  in  uptake  not  only  has   increased  its  role  as  an  extension  of  terrestrial  delivery,  but  also  has  been  championed  to   incrementally  replacing  terrestrial  as  the  primary  delivery  platform  for  many  broadcasters.  IP   delivery  offers  broadcasters  the  power  and  reach  extending  beyond  their  terrestrial  coverage   area  to  now  deliver  their  content  virtually  anywhere  in  the  world.  Thus,  webcasting  is  seen  by   many  as  the  ultimate  solution  to  the  questions  of  access  and  participation  for  alternative   broadcasters,  based  on  the  low  barriers  to  entry  and  universal  distribution  capabilities  of  the   technology  (Singer  2013).  Indeed,  thousands  of  existing  terrestrial  stations  stream  content  via   IP  similar  to  their  commercial  and  public  service  counterparts,  and  many  community   broadcasters  have  launched  new  radio  and  television  streams  via  exclusive  IP  transmission.  In   addition,  research  initiatives  in  conjunction  with  community  broadcasters  have  explored  how   programming  is  archived  and  then  distributed  online,  showing  community  broadcasters  how  to   increase  the  online  accessibility  of  their  programs3 .     Migration  of  online  users  away  from  traditional  legacy  media  is  indeed  well  underway,  as   younger  demographics  are  abandoning  traditional  terrestrial  and  cable  delivery  at  high  rates.   The  Nielsen  television  survey  for  20154  reports  that  in  the  USA,  take-­‐up  of  television  viewing  for                                                                                                                   3 The report about the Creative Approaches to Living Cultural Archives is here: http://cmds.ceu.edu/sites/cmcs.ceu.hu/files/attachment/article/955/captchafinalreport20160215.pdf. 4 More details about television viewing research from Nielsen: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/are- young-people-watching-less-tv-24817/. younger  demographics  via  IP  continues  to  grow,  as  more  18-­‐24  aged  viewers  are  using  online   delivery  than  traditional  live  delivery.       Figure  11:  Nielsen  2015  Survey  Results  -­‐  Television  Consumption     The  take-­‐up  of  online  radio  is  also  apparent,  as  evidenced  by  the  USA  Edison  Research  survey  of   20155 ,  which  reports  that  in  2015,  more  adults  aged  12+  listened  to  online  radio  than  listened   to  terrestrial  radio  (figure  12).                                                                                                                     5 The Edison research page is here: http://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2016/.     Figure  12:  Edison  Research  Survey  2016  -­‐  Online  Radio  Listening     While  the  platforms  for  linear  delivery  radio  and  television  evolve,  consumers  are  apparently   still  finding  the  familiar  broadcasting  content  to  which  they  are  accustomed;  albeit  via  IP.  This   migration  to  IP  delivery  however,  is  not  without  substantial  issues  for  the  broadcasters  and   consumers.  As  consumers  migrate  to  mobile  platforms,  the  wireless  networks  that  support   them  are  not  of  sufficient  scale  to  accommodate  current  terrestrial  usage  levels,  and  are  not   projected  to  do  so  using  existing  streaming  technology.  Data  security  is  also  an  important  issue,   because  IP  technologies  can  reveal  a  receiver’s  address  and  identity,  which  exposes  them  to  the   potential  for  unwanted  intrusion  and  surveillance  by  third  parties  (Shipman-­‐Wentworth  2014).   Questions  of  access  and  power  within  the  context  of  net  neutrality  are  also  present  in  the   online  paradigm,  similar  to  its  terrestrial  predecessor.  For  example,  a  standardized  sustainable   business  model  of  online  broadcasting  is  far  from  established,  as  most  online  music  services   and  commercial  radio  streams  have  struggled  to  generate  sufficient  revenue  to  offset   streaming  and  royalty  expenses.  It  appears  that  advertisers  just  don’t  value  these  online   services  similar  to  their  terrestrial  counterparts.  An  important  issue  for  community   broadcasters  regarding  webcasting  is  the  incremental  costs  of  streaming,  in  which  each  listener   or  viewer  is  connected  to  the  IP  broadcast  by  an  individual  stream.  Unlike  the  “one  to  many”   fixed-­‐cost  model  of  terrestrial  delivery,  the  online  broadcaster  must  pay  for  every  stream,   incurring  increasing  costs  as  listenership/viewership  increases.         Ironically,  similar  to  their  terrestrial  predecessors,  online  community  broadcasters  may  be   uniquely  qualified  to  prosper  as  a  result  of  their  commitment  to  the  values  of  “not-­‐for-­‐profit”,   “user-­‐generated”,  “social  and  political  representation”,  which  may  have  greater  importance  in   this  new  environment.  Regardless  of  technology,  broadcasting  seems  destined  to  continue  in   some  form.  Mathew  Lasar  (2016)  writes:     “Radio  2.0  is  a  very  uncertain  world.  But  I  argue  that  what  is  certain  is  that  we   need  audience  based  radio.  It  may  come  in  the  form  of  AM/FM,  podcasts,   webcasting,  mobile  streaming,  or  even  YouTube.  But  whatever  the  form,  we   need  synchronous  audio  broadcasting  that  brings  all  of  us  into  the  same  social   spaces  to  recognize  our  commonalities,  or  to  consider  what  needs  to  be  done   to  bridge  our  differences.”     Social  media  is  also  seen  as  having  a  profound  effect  on  traditional  broadcast  media  forms.   Jürgen  Habermas,  in  The  Structural  Transformation  of  the  Public  Sphere,  his  20th  century   proposed  solution  to  revitalizing  a  truly  democratic  public  sphere/s,  could  not  have  envisioned   the  technological  turn  taken  in  the  development  of  new  online  social  media  platforms.   Computer-­‐networked  communication  systems  have  introduced  the  potential  for  more   participatory  democracy  through  a  multiplicity  of  information  sources  and  forums  for  discourse   (DeLuca  and  Peeples  2002,  Castells  2008).  David  Winston  (2010)  writes  that  the  internet  has   created  a  new  digital  public  sphere  by  facilitating  the  "Four  C's"  of  the  digital  world   “communications,  content,  collaboration,  and  community  that  will  revolutionize  democratic   participation”.  Like  its  traditional  broadcasting  counterparts,  this  new  digital  meeting  place  is   populated  by  interests  from  across  the  societal  spectrum,  all  pursuing  their  own  agendas.  The   rise  of  social  media  has  expanded  the  public  sphere/s  into  new  territories  and  possibilities   where  participants  and  communities  can  transmit  images  and  ideas  with  greater  speed  and   power  than  ever  before  (Brooks  2014,  Macek  2016).       While  many  scholars  have  written  about  the  role  of  social  media  in  extending  the  concept  of   the  public  sphere/s,  much  of  the  theory  and  research  focuses  on  the  use  of  social  media  by   elites,  connecting  with  citizens  in  outward  public  relations  and  marketing  functions  (Wright   2007,  Jackson  and  Lilleker  2009,  Poell  and  van  Dijk  2016).  However,  ordinary  citizens  and  their   communities  also  connect  and  communicate  online  in  social  media  networks  of  many  varieties,   all  of  which  can  effectively  create  and  transmit  cultural  and  political  discourse  (Romero  and   Molina  2011).  These  “third  space”  online  forums  facilitate  discussions  cultivating  political   agency,  solidarity,  and  community  that  can  activate  individuals  and  groups  to  organize  and   mobilize  into  political  action  (Oldenburg  1989).  Wright,  Graham  and  Jackson  (2015)  argue  that   it  is  actually  the  online  spaces  not  specifically  devoted  to  political  ideology  that  facilitate  a  large   amount  of  political  discourse  by  participants  mixing  it  in  with  their  non-­‐political  everyday   discussions.  These  community-­‐based  forums  are  what  Papacharissi  (2011,  78)  calls  "spaces  that   are  friendlier  to  the  development  of  contemporary  civic  behaviors”.       Virtual  online  communities  of  interest  that  characterize  new  online  social  media  forms  have   added  to  the  mass  media  options  for  actors'  connectedness  and  participation.  Social  media  has   also  added  great  vigor  to  debates  over  the  primacy  of  proximity  in  identifying  communities.   Numerous  scholars  (Kollock  and  Smith  1999,  Marinov  and  Schimmelfennig  2015)  exhibit   optimism  about  the  potential  for  social  media  to  eliminate  the  need  for  proximity,  as  virtual   identity  communities  successfully  connect  and  transmit  content  in  multiple  directions.       Figure 14. Identity Communities in Social Networks. Centola 2015 Centola  (2015)  suggests  that  social  media's  connectedness  is  actually  enhanced  by  the  self-­‐ imposed  boundaries  of  identity  communities  (see  Figure  14).  However,  despite  the  widespread   adaptation  of  the  term  “community”  by  social  media,  other  scholars  remain  skeptical   (O’Connor  2008,  LoPresti  2013).  Tom  Sander  (2008,  15)  cautions  against  “romanticizing”  online   communities,  suggesting  that  “just  calling  something  a  community  doesn’t  make  it  one.  This  all   needs  to  be  empirically  tested".     Traditional  community  broadcasters  are  also  using  social  media  tools  and  applications  for  their   content  delivery  and  discourse,  constructing  a  new  social  reality  online  with  technological   optimism  (Krier  and  Gillett  1985,  Jenkins  2006).  However,  these  new  sites  of  participation   which  constitute  an  ostensibly  sustainable  platform  for  the  new  digital  public  sphere/s,  are   chiefly  owned  and  controlled  by  commercial  media.  The  stunning  financial  success  and  power   of  these  commercial  enterprises  in  this  new  social  media  realm  has  prompted  debates  that   connect  back  to  Habermas'  original  concept  of  a  public  sphere  co-­‐opted  by  the  rise  of  dominant   media  exerting  their  power  to  control  and  direct  passive  consumers.  In  today’s  online-­‐driven   society,  a  few  social  media  sites  now  command  large  shares  of  usage,  and  a  strikingly  small   group  of  telecommunications  operators  dominate  the  ownership  of  communications  networks   that  form  the  backbone  of  the  new  digital  public  sphere/s  (Cringely  2014).       Thus,  the  battle  for  control  of  this  new  social  media  paradigm  is  taking  place  not  only  on   screens  and  networks,  but  also  in  board  rooms,  stock  exchanges  and  legislative  bodies.  As   traditional  mass  media  (including  community  broadcasters)  see  their  business  models  disrupted   by  social  media,  they  struggle  to  evolve  successfully,  seeking  to  retain  their  participants  and   primacy  in  the  new  digital  public  sphere  (Singer  2013).  These  linear  delivery  curators  of  audio   and  video  are  exploring  new  social  media  user-­‐generated  platforms  for  their  content  delivery  in   a  digital  convergence  strategy  (BBC  2016).  Indeed,  scholars  and  practitioners  argue  that  the   successful  future  of  community  broadcasting  may  lie  in  the  strength  of  the  communities   themselves  as  generators  of  branded  content;  re-­‐curated  and  re-­‐transmitted  by  users  across  a   spectrum  of  online  social  media  channels  (Jenkins  2006,  Perrin  2015).     Media  policy-­‐makers  and  regulators,  delineated  by  national  boundaries  and  types  of  media   platforms,  have  traditionally  managed  the  public  sphere  of  terrestrial  broadcasting,  ostensibly   for  the  benefit  of  democratic  ideals.  Now  however,  they  are  challenged  to  conceptualize  the   public  sphere/s  in  this  new  digitally  converged  environment,  implementing  policies  that  adapt   to  the  way  participants  use  both  old  and  new  technologies,  especially  social  media.  Jonathan   Stray  (2011,  9)  writes  "what  we  have  now  is  an  ecosystem,  and  in  true  networked  fashion,   there  may  never  again  be  a  central  authority".                                       References     Alinsky,  M.  (1988).  International  Handbook  of  Broadcasting  Systems.  Westport,  CT.:   Greenwood.     Briggs,  A.,  and  P.  Burke.  (2009).  A  Social  History  of  the  Media;  From  Gutenberg  to  the  Internet.   Cambridge,  UK:  Polity  Press.     British  Broadcasting  Corporation  (BBC).  (2016).  “BBC  Three  moves  online  after  final  night  as  TV   channel”.  http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-­‐arts-­‐35578867   Accessed  16.2.2016     Centola,  D.  (2015).  The  Social  Origins  of  Networks  and  Diffusion.  American  Journal  of  Sociology.   Volume  120,  Number  5.     Cianci,  P.  (2012).  High  Definition  Television.  Durham,  NC.:  McFarland.     Cringely,  R.  (2014).  “AT&T  on  Net  Neutrality:  He  Who  Controls  the  Pipes  Controls  the  Universe”.   Infoworld.  http://www.infoworld.com/article/2847532/cringely/att-­‐on-­‐net-­‐neutrality-­‐ controls-­‐pipes-­‐controls-­‐universe.html  Accessed  31.1.2016.     DeLuca,  K.,  and  J.  Peeples.  (2002).  “From  Public  Sphere  to  Public  Screen:  Democracy,  Activism   and  the  Violence  of  Seattle”.  Critical  Studies  in  Media  Communication.  19(2002):  125-­‐ 151.     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.     Goddard,  G.  (2010).  DAB  Digital  Radio:  Licensed  to  Fail.  London,  UK:  Radio  Books.     Jackson,  N.  and  D.  Lilleker.  (2009).  “Building  an  Architecture  of  Participation?  Political  Parties   and  Web  2.0  in  Britain”.  Journal  of  Information  Technology  &  Politics.  6(3/4),  pp.   232  –  250.     Jenkins,  H.  (2006).  Convergence  Culture:  Where  Old  and  New  Media  Collide.  New  York   University  Press:  New  York.     Kollock,  P.  and  M.  Smith.  (eds).  (1999).  Communities  in  Cyberspace.  London:  Routledge.     Krier,  J.  and  C.  Gillett.  (1985).  “The  Uneasy  Case  for  Technological  Optimism”.  University  of   Michigan  Scholarship  Repository.   http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1927&context=articles   Accessed  3.2.2016     Lasar,  M.  (2008).  “NPR’s  War  on  Low  Power  FM:  The  Laws  of  Physics  Versus  Politics”.  ARS   Technica.  http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/04/nprs-­‐war-­‐on-­‐low-­‐power-­‐fm-­‐ the-­‐laws-­‐of-­‐physics-­‐vs-­‐politics/  Accessed  20.3.2016.     Macek,  J.  (2016).  “Post-­‐Televizní  Publika?  Stahování  a  Konvergentní  Vztah  k  Populárním   Obsahům”.  Lecture.  New  Media  Inspiration.  Charles  University.  Prague,  Czech  Republic.   13.2.2016.     Marinov,  N.  and  F.  Schimmelfennig.  (2015).  ‘Does  Social  Media  Promote  Civic  Activism?   Evidence  from  a  Field  Experiment’,  Center  for  Comparative  and  International  Studies.   Zürich:  ETH.     Oakley,  K.  and  J.  O'Connor.  (eds.).  (2015).  The  Routledge  Companion  to  the  Cultural  Industries.   London:  Routledge.     Oldenburg,  R.  (1989).  The  Great  Good  Place:  Cafes,  Coffee  Shops,  Community  Centers,  Beauty   Parlours,  General  Stores,  Bars,  Hangouts,  and  How  They  Get  You  through  the  Day.  New   York:  Paragon  House.     O’Neill,  B.  (ed).  (2010).  Digital  Radio  in  Europe:  Technologies,  Industries  and  Cultures.  London:   Intellect.     Papacharissi,  Z.  (2011).  A  Private  Sphere:  Democracy  in  a  Digital  Age.  Malden,  MA:  Polity  Press.     Poell,  T  and  J.  van  Dijck.  (2016).  “Constructing  Public  Space:  Global  Perspectives  on  Social  Media   and  Popular  Contestation”.  International  Journal  of  Communication  10(2016),  226-­‐234.     Perrin,  A.  (2015).  Social  Media  Usage:  2005-­‐2015.  Pew  Research  Center.   http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-­‐networking-­‐usage-­‐2005-­‐2015/   Accessed  31.1.2016.     Romero,  D.,  &  A.  Molina.  (2011).  “Collaborative  Networked  Organisations  and  Customer   Communities:  Value  Co-­‐creation  and  Co-­‐innovation  in  the  Networking  Era”.  Production   Planning  &  Control,  22(5-­‐6),  447-­‐472.     Singer,  A.  (2013).  “AM  /  FM  Radio  Is  Already  Over,  And  No  One  Will  Miss  It”.  The  Future  Buzz.   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.     Stray,  J.  (2011).  What  Should  the  Digital  Public  Sphere  Do?”.  Jonathan  Stray.   http://jonathanstray.com/what-­‐should-­‐the-­‐digital-­‐public-­‐sphere-­‐do  Accessed  17.1.2016.     Winston,  D.  (2010).  “Digital  Democracy  and  the  New  Age  of  Reason”.  Massachusetts  Institute  of   Technology.  http://web.mit.edu/comm-­‐forum/papers/winston.html  Accessed   17.1.2016.     Wohlsen,  M.  (2014).  “As  Online  Viewing  Soars,  Internet  TV  Will  Soon  be  the  ONLY  TV”.  Wired.   20.10.2014.  http://www.wired.com/2014/10/online-­‐viewing-­‐soars-­‐internet-­‐tv-­‐will-­‐tv/   Accessed  27.3.2016.     Wright,  S.  (2007).  “A  Virtual  European  Public  Sphere?  The  Futurum  Discussion  Forum”.  Journal   of  European  Public  Policy.  14(8),  pp.  1167  –  1185.