![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The promotion of media literacy as way of increasing access to the range of services available via today's media and communication technologies is currently an emphasis in Europe's information society policy debates. The notion of media literacy heralds a shift in the communications policy arena, especially with regard to media access as a policy goal. Taking into account the situated origins of the inherited regulatory concepts of access, this article argues that the way in which we operationalize media access must reflect how individuals engage with convergent electronic media services. It proposes a context- and user-sensitive approach, where the situation of media (non)users is assessed in terms of the technological and social infrastructure needed to support their access to particular media services.
The author wishes to thank three anonymous referees, Yasmin Ibrahim, and Harmeet Sawhney for his comments, suggestions, and support.
Notes
1. Content regulation has been implemented though detailed structural and behavioral controls setting the terms under which broadcasters supply their programs to audiences. These have comprised controls on program origin and positive rules requiring inclusion of a certain mix of content types in a given program schedule. Additionally, negative content controls have served to protect viewers from exposure to inappropriate or offensive material.
2. Although electronic communications have always combined a technology and a service, it is customary to identify analogue media services by reference to their underlying technologies of distribution, such as “broadcasting.”
3. Although, historically, education and community learning have not fallen within the scope of communications policy, the redistribution of opportunities to education and promotion of equal chances to culture and communications have been key social policy concerns in social democratic welfare states, along with the right to labor, public health, and prevention of poverty. For a discussion of the relationship between the Welfare State and electronic communications see CitationBurgelman (2000).
4. Ofcom (Citation2004, p. 6) has referred to this converging, cross-departmental responsibility: “the Home Office, the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry all have responsibilities when it comes to media literacy.”
5. The European Commission's first review of the scope of universal service, undertaken in 2006 (CitationEC, 2006b), concluded there was no need to extend the scope of universal service to high-speed Internet services as the conditions for including broadband were not fulfilled. In the United Kingdom, Ofcom had also concluded that the scope of universal service should stay the same, covering narrowband services at affordable prices to whoever reasonably requests them (CitationOfcom, 2006c). However, in its second periodic review (CitationEC, 2008) the European Commission raised the question of how an extension of the scope of the universal service to broadband would be accommodated (CitationEC, 2008, p. 12), as broadband coverage was by then considerably high in most Member States and Internet use was approaching the level of a service used by the majority (with 49% of EU households using the Internet, 36% of which on broadband). In the United Kingdom, universal service is currently under review. A report published in January 2009 on behalf of the UK government recommended that universal service be redefined to extend its scope, making available 2-Mbps broadband service for every home by 2012 (UK DCMS and BERR, 2009).