As a longtime fan of community media, I was intrigued by the news that Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill that would impose a fee on streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ to help fund public access television. This would be a groundbreaking move that could potentially save hundreds of local stations from going under, while also ensuring that viewers have access to diverse and independent voices in their communities.
Community media, also known as public, educational, and governmental (PEG) programming, is a form of non-commercial media that is produced by and for the people. It covers a wide range of topics, from local news and events, to arts and culture, to education and civic engagement. It provides a platform for marginalized groups, such as immigrants, seniors, youth, and people of color, to share their stories and perspectives. It also fosters media literacy and civic participation, by offering training and equipment for anyone who wants to create their own content.
Community media is funded mainly by cable revenue fees, which are paid by cable providers to municipalities in exchange for using local infrastructure to reach customers. These fees are then distributed to community media centers, which operate the PEG channels and provide the necessary resources and support for content creation. However, as more and more people cut the cord and switch to streaming services, these fees are dwindling rapidly, putting community media at risk of losing its main source of income.
According to Jonathan Grabowski, the executive director of Marshfield Community Television and a clerk on the board of MassAccess, a nonprofit that advocates for community media, cable subscriptions have dropped by more than 30% in the state since 2012, while community media centers have seen a decrease in funding of nearly 60% during the same period. He testified at a July 13 hearing on the bill that “in an age of remote participation and a lack of local media coverage, community media centers in Massachusetts have found themselves in the untenable situation of increased demand for services with less funding.”
Indeed, community media has played an essential role during the pandemic, when many local meetings and events had to be held online or remotely. Seventy percent of Mass Access’ member organizations reported a sharp increase in coverage of local meetings since 2020, to support hybrid open-public-meeting requirements during the pandemic. Community media also provided vital information and resources to help residents cope with the health and economic crisis.
That’s why I think the proposed legislation, which is called the “Act to Modernize Funding For Community Media Programming”, is a smart and timely idea. It would impose a 5% fee on streaming providers, based on their gross annual revenue in the state, and allocate a portion of it to municipalities for the support of their community media centers. This would not only help sustain the existing community media infrastructure, but also allow it to grow and innovate with new technologies and platforms.
Massachusetts would be the first state to use fees on streaming services specifically to support community media, according to David Gauthier, the president of MassAccess and the executive director of Winchester Community Access & Media. He said that “this bill is about modernizing our funding model for community media so that we can continue to provide essential services to our communities.”
The bill would also require streaming providers to carry PEG channels as part of their service offerings, similar to cable providers. This would increase the visibility and accessibility of community media content for viewers who may not have cable or antenna access. It would also create more opportunities for collaboration and partnership between streaming providers and community media centers.
Of course, not everyone is happy with this proposal. Some streaming providers have argued that it would be unfair and burdensome to impose such a fee on them, especially since they do not use public infrastructure or compete directly with cable providers. They have also claimed that it would violate federal law and interfere with interstate commerce.
However, I think these arguments are not very convincing. First of all, streaming services do use public infrastructure, such as the internet, which is partly funded by taxpayers and regulated by the government. They also do compete with cable providers, as they offer similar or overlapping content and services to the same customers. Secondly, there is no clear federal law that prohibits states from taxing streaming services, as long as they do not discriminate against or burden interstate commerce. In fact, at least a dozen states currently levy some kind of digital tax on streaming services, but Massachusetts would be the first state to earmark a portion of the fees specifically to support community media.
I think this is a worthy and noble cause, and I hope that the bill will pass and set an example for other states to follow. Community media is a valuable and irreplaceable asset for our democracy and our society. It deserves our support and recognition, especially in a time when local journalism is shrinking and misinformation is spreading. By taxing streaming services to fund community media, we can ensure that we have a diverse and independent media landscape that reflects and serves our communities.
Reference articles:
-Massachusetts lawmakers consider a tax on streaming services to help fund public access media, Nieman Journalism Lab, July 25, 2023
-Massachusetts Lawmakers Look to Streaming Services to Fund Public Access Media, Nieman Foundation News, July 20, 2023
-Massachusetts “Netflix Tax” Bill Would Impose 5% Fee On Internet Streaming Services, AVL Blog – Communications Law & Technology, August 26, 2019