The Community Access Programming Sector: A Quantitative Analysis

for the CRTC

By David Keeble
Keeble Consulting

September 22, 2009

The Commission notes that it was not involved in formulating any of the positions contained in the following report and that the views expressed are those of the author and in no way bind the Commission.

Introduction

Purpose of the Study

Describing the Community TV Access Programming Sector

The community sector receives prominent references in the Broadcasting Act, beginning with Section 3, the "broadcasting policy" declaration:

(1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that

(b) the Canadian broadcasting system, … comprising public, private and community elements, … provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;

(e) each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;

(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... include educational and community programs,

To further these objectives, the "community element" has been made the subject of policy and regulation, as set out in Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61, and the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations. This regulation defines local community programming, setting minimum exhibition requirements for it on the community channel, and makes particular provision for the creation and promotion of "community access" programming. The importance of this activity is articulated in the policy:

51. Access by citizens to the community channel has always been a cornerstone of the Commission's policy. In Public Notice 1991-59 the Commission stated:

The factor that most distinguishes the content of community programming from conventional television services is the ability of community programming to turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant. From this participation flows programming of a nature that is as varied as the imagination and skills of the participants.

52. The Commission expects licensees [i.e. Broadcast Distribution Undertakings (ed.)] to give the community the widest opportunity for self-expression by actively encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas, produce their own programs with or without the help of the licensee's staff, and submit videotapes and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee.

53. The Commission considers that providing and encouraging citizen access remains one of the most important roles of the community channel.

However, the community sector, and the access programming portion of that sector, is still, relatively speaking, little known and described. Licensees in the public and private television sectors report to the Commission on a regular basis. Their economic conditions and their production performance are well described in the Commission's Communications Monitoring Report and other documents. Independent producers who work in those sectors, both French and English, are well organized and expert in regulatory and policy matters. They also create regular reports on their economic and production conditions and make these publicly available.

By contrast, there is little description or analysis of conditions in "the community element" of the television broadcasting system. Cable companies, as licensees, have a direct connection with the CRTC and may report on the conditions and performance of their community channels. In the radio sector, community radio stations are also licensees. However, most of the participants in the creation of community television access programming have little or no connection with the Commission. Even when they are organized collectively and connected with one another – and many are not, even through the organizations CACTUS and the Quebec Federation of Independent Community Television – they do not submit data and produce regular reports comparable to that available for the private and public television sectors.

In the context of the upcoming review of the community policy, the Commission wished to have a better description of conditions in this sector, to inform participants and to supplement the data that will be made available in submissions. Therefore this report was commissioned.

Scope of the Sector for the Purposes of this Report

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61 provides several definitions that are relevant to this study:

28. Accordingly, for the purpose of this policy, the Commission considers local community television programming to consist of programs, as defined in the Act, that are reflective of the community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed area, or by members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced in another licensed area within the same municipality will also be considered local community television programming.

Within that definition, in paragraph 54, the Commission specifies that:

… access programs are programs produced by members of the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.

This definition is the primary guideline for the scope of the report – the intention is to gather data about such programming and the groups and individuals who produce it.

The scope therefore includes the programming produced by several kinds of undertaking, such as "TV Corporations".

60. For the purposes of this policy, the Commission defines TV corporations as:

Not-for-profit corporations, incorporated under a provincial or federal charter which provides that the primary activity of the corporation is to produce community television programming and/or operate a community television channel that is reflective of the community they represent. Board members must be drawn from the local community and the corporation must hold an annual meeting where all members of the corporation are invited to participate and to vote.

… and also the "community programming services," created by the policy,

Licences under this new class will be available to non-profit community groups in situations where the cable company does not provide a community channel, or does not operate a community channel in accordance with the provisions of the revised policy.

… and, of course, Community-based Low Power Television Stations.

In addition, there are individuals and community groups – clubs, churches, and less formal organizations who simply want to make TV programs – who work on their own or with BDUs to create access programming.

These are, finally, supplemented by formal institutions who make television programming as an adjunct to their regular work – such as educational institutions and municipalities. (However, the community policy specifically excludes municipal council meetings from the scope of access programming^{Footnote 1}.)

Issues in determining the scope

The methodology of the study was simple – produce an electronic questionnaire, distribute it as widely as possible to the concerned parties, and compile the results when they arrived. Because of the nature of the sector itself, however, both distribution and collection provided challenges.

A reasonable number of questionnaires were returned in the initial stages, largely from those organizations who are organized in groups. However, there are many "community producers" who do not usually communicate with the Commission, and who could be found only through the cable companies who distribute their programs. Some cable companies responded quickly, and circulated information about the questionnaire to their contacts, while others did not, so it has taken some time to compile a reasonable number of such questionnaires.

Moreover, it is evident that the definition and nature of "community access" programming is not well understood, and is subject to variable interpretation. Some responses were based on an understanding that "access" could include programs in which members of the community had little or no role in the television production, though they were involved in the event covered. Questionnaire responses often revealed this and other misunderstandings, and it was necessary to follow up with respondents to determine the status of their programs.

In the end, a workable number of responses were received in this first version of the dataset, but there are significant regional gaps, whose cause cannot be definitively determined. It may be that the BDU responsible for that region did not encourage their contacts to participate, or it may be that participation in access programming itself is very low in those regions. The result is that, in this initial version of the report, only top-level, and not regional, conclusions can be drawn on some questions. Hopefully, future versions of this exercise will be able to resolve those issues, and a more detailed description of national and regional activity will become possible.

The Results

The DataSet

Who are the community access producers in the dataset^{Footnote 2}?

In this report, it has proved useful to separate the producers of community access programming into several categories. (We should note at the beginning that BDUs are not included as producers in the dataset – the reason being that "community access programming, by definition, is produced by someone else, though the community producer may make extensive use of a BDU's facilities.)

• At one end of the scale, there are formally organized and licensed groups with capital infrastructure, and complete control over their own schedules, such as low-power over-the-air stations.
• At the other end are individuals and community groups, who produce programs but have no responsibility for the channel itself. In this report, these are referred to as "Community Producers."
• Between the extremes lie institutions, such as municipalities, other government bodies, and educational institutions.
• The fourth category, "Community Channel Affiliates" (CCAs) consists of community groups who report some scheduling responsibility for the channel itself. They are not cable companies, nor are they licensed by the CRTC, but they share responsibility for the scheduling of programs on the BDU-run community channel. This category usually includes the "TV Corporations" referred to by the Commission in the Community Policy, but excludes – for the purposes of this report – co-operatives who produce programming but have no control over the scheduling of the community channel itself^{Footnote 3}.

Do some provinces encourage certain categories?

As can be seen in Table 2 below, 82% of respondents from Quebec are "Community Channel Affiliates." No current respondent from outside Quebec is in this category, though the status of some co-operatives may be reconsidered. In general, however, if they are not licensees, groups outside Quebec apparently do not have significant responsibility for scheduling the channel. The reasons for this difference lie in policy matters that lie outside the scope of this report.

Quebec's Community Channel Affiliates are a significant part of the dataset, since Quebec is the source of 49% of the current responses, and a very large amount of programming, as will be seen below.

Moreover, outside Quebec, the number of returns from each province was too small to make category breakdowns meaningful. In the current dataset, there are no returns from several provinces and none from any territory. As a result, many tables will not show provincial breakdowns, both because the detail will not be meaningful, and in some cases, to maintain confidentiality.

Table 1 – Number of Reporting Groups, by Category and Province

Table 2 – Percentage of Categories in each Province

Table 3 - Percentage of Categories, by Province

Programming

Service in Two Languages

The first concern of this report is programming – what does the sector contribute to the broadcasting system? Respondents were therefore asked to describe the programs they produced in various ways, first of all, by language and genre.

A total of 316 programs were reported under these categories, and an initial look at the numbers shows several interesting features:

• In this dataset, there were no programs reported in aboriginal languages, and only one in a language other than French or English^{Footnote 4}. Access programs in those languages may well exist, but they were not included by respondents to this questionnaire.
• The dataset also contains more access programs in French than in English. One possible reason is that the groups reporting from Quebec produce more shows. However, because of the resources available to Quebec's access program groups (described below), it may well be that there are, in reality, more access programs produced in French.
• In both French and English, the diversity of genres is remarkable.

Table 4 – Numbers of Programs by Language and Genre

The same diversity can be seen when programming is reported by hours produced -

Table 5 - Hours of Programming Produced by Language and Genre

– and when that same programming is represented in percentages of production hours per language. Current Affairs accounts for 34% of the hours produced in French, but the next highest percentage is 22%, and all genres are represented in each official language, though the amount of drama is understandably low, since scripted drama and comedy are normally expensive and exacting to produce for television.

Table 6 – Percentage of Program Hours by Language and Genre

Regional and Language Differences

A feature – perhaps an anomaly – of this dataset is that 99.9% of the French program hours are produced in Quebec, and 99.9% of the English hours are produced outside Quebec. In future reports, with a greater number of respondents, one would hope to see greater representation of official language minority communities, as well as greater representation of aboriginal and "third" languages.

Table 7 – Percentage of Program Hours by Language and Province

Types of Programming carried by specific Distributors

Are some genres of access programs encouraged by certain cable companies?

One cannot come to that conclusion based on this dataset alone. Where there are enough programs reported to allow one to see a trend, the access programming carried by specific distributors shows a balance of program types. There are some imbalances in the table below, but they tend to occur when only a few programs, offered by a few access groups, are reported.

The exception might be a trend toward current affairs programs on Shaw systems – with 22 programs reported, 55% are in the Current Affairs category, with nothing in the Sports or Religious categories. Again however, more extensive reporting might show more even balance.

Table 8 – Percentage of Programs by Distributor and Genre

Editorial Control of Programming

Respondents were asked to specify who makes decisions about program content for particular programs: the access group, the distributor, both working together, or a third party.

As can be seen in Table 9, the "normal" mode for the 303 programs reported was for the Community Group to have sole control over program content, and in some cases, to share that control with the distributor. No cases of Distributor control were reported, though in 28 cases, the access group reported that control was exercised by a third party.

Table 9 – Program Decisions, Percentage of Programs, by Distributor

How is programming distributed?

Is access programming local-into-local or does it get wider distribution?

Respondents were asked to describe the coverage that each of their programs received. That is, were they distributed beyond their originating neighbourhood or market? Did they cover the whole province or several provinces?

As it turned out, very few programs – 7 out of the 300 for which data was provided – were distributed beyond the level of "region within a province". There were, however, a large number of programs in the "region within a province" grouping. Such regional distribution did not seem to be typical of any particular distributor for access programming, so a provincial analysis was applied in Tables 10 and 11.

These tables show that "region within a province" distribution is typical, for the most part, of Quebec. Since many of Quebec's CCAs are rural entities that cover a wide geographic area, this distribution is, in fact, within their normally-served markets and can be considered local.

Table 10 – Program Distribution Areas by Province

Table 11 – Percentage of programs receiving specific distribution, by province

TV and Internet Video-on-Demand

Respondents were asked whether programs were provided on television Video-on-demand, and also on Internet Video-on-demand.

While the numbers for television video-on-demand were not large, they amounted to 10% of the programs described in the dataset by the access groups, which is sufficient to indicate a real level of activity.

SaskTel, of course, is a BDU who provides its community programming solely on-demand – there is no linear channel. However, none of the access producers working through SaskTel submitted a questionnaire response, so there is an unknown quantity of video-on-demand activity that is not represented in the dataset.

Table 12 – Programs also carried on video-on-demand, by Distributor

On the question of whether programs were also provided on the Internet for later on-demand viewing, the positive responses were quite strong. There was some correlation with distributors, but the strongest correlation was to the category of access programmer. Fully 40% of programs provided by Quebec's CCAs were made available on demand on the Internet, while community producers made 22% of their shows available. Institutions and LPTV stations reported providing relatively few programs, at 3% and 6%.

Table 13 – Percentage of Programs also provided on the Internet

Is Access programming broadcast live?

A surprising number of access programs are broadcast live, in all categories, led by Bingo (necessarily at 100%), meeting coverage and religious services.

Table 14 – Are access programs broadcast live? (by genre)

Resources in the Sector

Overall Capital Expenditures

All respondents were asked to estimate their annual operating budgets and their capital expenditures on production equipment over the last five years, as well as the sources of their funding over that period. (The 5 year period was used to "smooth" atypical results arising from funding sources that might be available only in specific years, such as capital grants.)

Capital expenditures varied enormously. Some groups reported no spending, some as little as a few hundred dollars for the acquisition of a single camera. At the opposite extreme, an institution reported spending over a million dollars, though probably not for the sole purpose of community programming. Even LPTV stations showed a wide range of expenditure on production, anywhere from fifty thousand to over a million.

In such a context, one should be guarded in the use of averages to indicate trends. However, it is worth noting (Table 15) that Quebec's Community Channel Affiliates reported average spending of over $130,000 on capital for production over the five year period, a number similar to LPTV stations (bearing in mind that transmission equipment is not included).

In general, community producers had much lower expenditures than other categories, though the presence of some relatively large co-operatives in this sub-sector raised the average.

Table 15 – Overall Average Capital Spending by Category and Region

Operating Budgets

Respondents were also asked to estimate operating budgets for the year 2007-08. 24 respondents did not report. The 56 groups who did reported total spending of $8.8 million, with, again, the great bulk of it in Quebec.

Operating budgets also exhibit a wide range in spending – anywhere from a few hundred dollars, for small groups who produce one program, to $200,000 for larger groups who produce many programs. LPTV stations also vary from large (for the sector) to the very small.

Table 16 – Total Annual Operating Budget by Category and Region

How well are community producers equipped?

Most community access producers in the dataset have invested in production equipment, although 18 of the 70 groups (25%) reported owning no cameras or edit suites of any kind, and no expenditures on production equipment.

The kind of equipment used by these groups varies greatly in amount, type, and cost. All 28 CCAs in Quebec reported owning studio facilities, but only 2 LPTV stations, 2 community producers, and one institution outside Quebec owned their own studio.

All LPTV stations reported owning a master control, and 20 of the CCAs in Quebec did as well. This is as expected, given their responsibility for scheduling the channel and outputting programs.

Only 4 community producers owned lighting equipment, though virtually all CCAs and LPTV stations did.

Cameras and editing equipment, however, were more widely in use. The tables below show that on average, Quebec's CCAs reported 8 cameras and 3 edit suites purchased over the 5 year period, with LPTV stations showing similar numbers. Meanwhile community groups ranged from 4-7 cameras and 1-3 editors.

Table 17 – Average Number of Cameras in use by Categories, by Region

Table 18 – Average Number of Edit Suites or PC editors in use by Category and Region

Do they use professional or "prosumer" equipment?

One might expect to see a significant difference among categories of community producer in the cost of the cameras employed, and this is true to some extent. Community production groups use a mix of professional and high-end consumer ("prosumer") cameras, and the result (Table 19) is that average costs of cameras are somewhat comparable across groups, but the Quebec CCAs are higher due to a greater use of professional cameras. The results for Institutions are clearly anomalous in this case due to a single entry from Quebec which is evidently very well equipped, though perhaps not, as noted earlier, for the sole purpose of producing community programming.

Table 19 – Average Cost of Cameras, by Category and Region

A clear difference can be seen when comparing the cost of editing facilities. Here, the professional gear appears to be accessible only to the better funded, more professional operations. This includes some LPTV stations and some production co-operatives outside Quebec, as well as the CCAs in Quebec.

Table 20 – Average Cost of Editing Facilities, PC and Professional Suites

How is the sector resourced and financed?

Sources of Funding

So where does the money come from?

Respondents were asked to estimate their top three sources of funding, and the amounts received over a 5 year period.

• The total funding reported in this way was just over $20 million for the 50 groups reporting, or an average of $5 million per year for the sector.
• Funding reported in Quebec was 66% of the total funding for the country.
• No subscription funding was reported.
• The largest source was "self-financed", including advertising (where permitted, as for LPTV stations) and other revenue-generating activities such as Tele-bingo, when this kind of programming was used to raise funds for the production operation, rather than a local charity.

Table 21 – Sources of Funding over 5 years by Region, (in $ thousands)

Notably, over the 5 years, Community programmers in Quebec reported a total of almost $2.5 Million in Provincial funding. Only $22,000 was reported from other provinces for community access programming or capital funding. Funding from cable companies was also almost exclusive to Quebec, with Manitoba the only other province reporting BDU funding.

However, 99% of the municipal funding in the country was granted in British Columbia.

Table 22 – Sources of Funding: Percentages by Region

While once again urging caution in drawing conclusions from the small number of reporting groups in individual provinces, one can note that the mix of funding sources was heavily toward the municipal in BC, self-financing and private donations in the eastern English provinces, and more balanced in Quebec, with self-financed activities taking the lead over nearly equal contributions from the province, from cablecos, and from "other" sources.

Table 23 – Sources of Funding: Percentages within Regions

Human Resources

40 of the 70 groups report having full-time or part-time paid staff. Volunteers appear to have been the mainstay of program production, however, with groups reporting a total of 1,474 volunteers working with them in the year 2007-08.

Table 24 – Numbers of Volunteers by Category and Region

Moreover, hours of volunteering were estimated at a total of over 93,000 for the year.

Table 25 – Volunteer Hours by Category and Region

Respondents were asked whether the bulk of training for volunteers was provided by the group's staff, the BDU, an educational institution, or other volunteers. 57 groups answered this question, and the weight was toward the group's own staff and other volunteers.

• Of course, LPTV stations do not work directly with BDUs, and the bulk of their volunteer training was provided by other volunteers.
• Community Producers, on the other hand, do work with cable companies, and while 26% reported that the bulk of their training came from BDUs, 58% reported that other volunteers did the training.
• Quebec's CCAs relied heavily on their paid staff.
• Institutions relied the most on BDUs for training.

Table 26 – Who provides the bulk of training for volunteers?

BDUs also have a role in providing volunteers to groups who come in to make a production. That is, a community group may not have sufficient people to handle all of the roles, and the cablecos may then provide other volunteers – sometimes students from television production courses in a nearby educational institution – to complete the needed complement of production staff.

Respondents were asked to what extent they relied on the BDU or an educational institution for volunteers, and to what extent they provided production volunteers from their own ranks.

53 groups responded to this question, and again, the weight was toward self-reliance for production groups generally. Almost half of Community Producers, however, shared responsibility with the BDU for providing volunteers, and a tenth of them relied entirely on the BDU. These may represent situations where a group produces an event for television – like Bingo, again – but all of the technical production is handled by the BDU.

Table 27 - Who provides volunteers?

Paid staff and volunteers

In many ways, the size of the community access sector is surprising. Although it is divided unevenly across the country, the total of almost 19,000 hours of programming produced in a year, and 93,000 volunteer hours devoted to that production, indicates both that the sector is – in places – very active, and that it is dependent on its human resources as much as on its financial resources.

In addition to the overall "Volunteer Hours" figures, respondents were asked to estimate both volunteer and paid staff hours that were devoted to individual programs. These figures are equally revealing. Tables 28 and 29 break down volunteer hours per genre. These show that certain genres of programming are extremely labour intensive, from both volunteers and paid staff.

Table 28 – Average Volunteer Hours Per show or Series, by Category and Genre

Table 29 – Average Paid Staff hours Per Show or Series, by Category and Genre

However, analysis involving average hours per program is once again misleading in this case, because of the wide variations in hours required.

Of course, the resources needed for television programs are always variable – the effort that goes into an hour of documentary can vary tremendously with the subject matter and the approach. But these variances are accentuated in the access sector. Some programs of current affairs documentary "shorts" in the dataset are reported as extremely labour intensive and require many volunteers. Institutions, like municipalities, may decide that a program is needed for policy reasons and report literally thousands of staff hours to create a few hours of television production. At the other extreme, a single producer with a camera and a PC may produce tens of hours of current affairs interviews in a year.

Only a general, overall conclusion is possible in this case: that both volunteers and paid staff, whether provided by a BDU, an educational institution or the group itself, are fundamental to access production as it is practised.

Conclusions

As noted elsewhere in this report, the figures provided should be treated with caution. Because of gaps in the current dataset, they are capable of providing broad overall description of the community access sector, not detailed conclusions.

Questionnaires are still being returned as this is being written. It is our hope that enough will arrive to fill certain gaps; if this is the case, then a second version of this report may be issued in time to be useful in the upcoming policy discussion.

On the other hand, it may be that these gaps reflect reality: that community access groups do not flourish across the country, but only in those places where conditions, such as the availability of financing, are conducive.

Until that question can be settled, it would be prudent to treat this dataset and the figures drawn from it as a useful basis for further exploration, rather than a definitive description of the sector. That said, there are some broad conclusions that can be drawn, even from this dataset.

Size and Contribution

The community access sector of the broadcasting system is so little known that any measures are bound to be novel. Nonetheless, its reported overall size, even in this incomplete dataset, is impressive and surprising. The production of nearly 19,000 program hours in a year, and involving 1,474 volunteers in over 93,000 hours of production effort, indicates a level of activity in the sector that argues well for its strength and growth potential.

Programming Diversity

Equally, the diversity of program types available from access sources indicates a wide group of interests and the ability of the sector to provide a source of diversity in the broadcasting system.

Progressive Movement

It was also interesting to note the degree of adoption of new technologies. With the aid of BDUs, a significant amount of programming is available on the VoD platform, and groups are making even more significant use of Internet distribution.

These groups are not funded in a way that makes new technologies like HDTV readily available; on the contrary, these groups use a mix of professional and "prosumer" gear for cost reasons, but many appear to be able and ready to adopt new technologies that are within their reach.

Imbalances in the Sector

However, the glaring imbalances in the system cannot be ignored.

Of the 18,870 hours of production, 16,609 were produced in Quebec and in French. In terms of volunteer hours, Quebec is as large as the rest of the country combined.

Financing and Support structures correlate to success

It is evident in all the measures that the community access sector is a great deal stronger and more active in Quebec than outside. The availability of significant funding from the province and from BDUs in Quebec is also striking, and may form the basis on which even greater self-financing activity is built.

The ability of organized "TV Corporations" in that province to have some degree of control over the schedule may also be a source of stability. That most of these entities serve rural regions makes their levels of activity even more impressive.

It is not the role of this study to make policy recommendations. However, the data strongly suggest a correlation between the dramatically different levels of activity in Quebec and the funding sources and structures that are unique to that province.

Are there access programming "cold spots?"

The dataset available, with less than 100 respondents, cannot lead directly to this conclusion. It is true that no community access producers have reported from some provinces, but that, in this early stage of reporting, may simply indicate a lack of awareness in those areas.

Possibly, the BDUs responsible for community programming in those areas have not notified community access groups sufficiently of the availability of the questionnaire. Equally possibly, those BDUs may have few access groups working with them.

As it stands, however, there is no data reported from any territory, Newfoundland and Labrador, or Saskatchewan. Some other provinces have only one or two reporting groups. No programming has been reported in aboriginal languages, and very little in languages other than French or English.

The conclusion is that evidence should be sought to determine whether these, and other under-reporting areas, are actually "cold spots" for access production, or whether potential respondents exist, and can be found to describe the situation in those areas.

Both Volunteers and Paid staff are Fundamental

A final conclusion from the data is that a great deal of access programming is dependent on the contribution of both volunteers and paid staff, however provided. While there are grey areas in the question of exactly when programs are "access" and when they are produced by the BDU, nonetheless the presence of professional help from groups, institutions and BDUs is clearly a cornerstone of true access programming, and as fundamental as the hours provided by volunteers.

Moreover, the use of these professionals does not appear to unduly influence program content. Responses from producers indicate that they exercise editorial control over every access program, sometimes alone, and sometimes in company with the distributor.

Index of Tables:

Table 1 – Number of Reporting Groups, by Category and Province 4

Table 2 – Percentage of Categories in each Province 4

Table 3 - Percentage of Categories, by Province 4

Table 4 – Numbers of Programs by Language and Genre 4

Table 5 - Hours of Programming Produced by Language and Genre 4

Table 6 – Percentage of Program Hours by Language and Genre 4

Table 7 – Percentage of Program Hours by Language and Province 4

Table 8 – Percentage of Programs by Distributor and Genre 4

Table 9 – Program Decisions, Percentage of Programs, by Distributor 4

Table 10 – Program Distribution Areas by Province 4

Table 11 – Percentage of programs receiving specific distribution, by province 4

Table 12 – Programs also carried on video-on-demand, by Distributor 4

Table 13 – Percentage of Programs also provided on the Internet 4

Table 14 – Are access programs broadcast live? (by genre) 4

Table 15 – Overall Average Capital Spending by Category and Region 4

Table 16 – Total Annual Operating Budget by Category and Region 4

Table 17 – Average Number of Cameras in use by Categories, by Region 4

Table 18 – Average Number of Edit Suites or PC editors in use by Category and Region 4

Table 19 – Average Cost of Cameras, by Category and Region 4

Table 20 – Average Cost of Editing Facilities, PC and Professional Suites 4

Table 21 – Sources of Funding over 5 years by Region, (in $ thousands) 4

Table 22 – Sources of Funding: Percentages by Region 4

Table 23 – Sources of Funding: Percentages within Regions 4

Table 24 – Numbers of Volunteers by Category and Region 4

Table 25 – Volunteer Hours by Category and Region 4

Table 26 – Who provides the bulk of training for volunteers? 4

Table 27 - Who provides volunteers? 4

Table 28 – Average Volunteer Hours Per show or Series, by Category and Genre 4

Table 29 – Average Paid Staff hours Per Show or Series, by Category and Genre 4

Date modified:

2009-11-05