The Government had a very difficult task in working out how to deal with digital television. There were many competing interests. Fortunately, the Government did not abdicate the whole matter to market forces. The market alone would be a fine regulator if there were unlimited space, no question of looking after viewers outside the big markets of Sydney and Melbourne, no issue of cultural identity or the general public interest in ensuring quality and diversity in the media.
The broadcast spectrum for television, radio and other signals is public property and should be rationed in the public interest. That does not mean it should all be auctioned to the highest bidder.
Essentially, the new digital technology allows much more to be transmitted on an existing seven megahertz channel. At present one analogue transmission takes up the whole channel. Moreover, it is not a very good signal. It comes with ghosting and other interference. A digital channel, on the other hand, could send various combinations of high-definition, enhanced-definition and standard-definition television and/or data transmission.
High-definition takes up 80 per cent of a 7MHz channel, enhanced takes about a third of a channel, standard about a fifth and data at the rate of 20 megabits per second would take a full channel. High- and enhanced-definition television can make use of wide-format sets with more detailed definition than present sets. Standard digital uses present format and definition but without ghosting. Existing TV sets would require a converter to receive digital signals.
There is plenty of bandwidth for television available in all areas of Australia. There is room to allow the existing five networks (Seven, Nine, Ten, ABC and SBS) to have simultaneous analogue and digital channels, a fourth network and data services.
Communications Minister Richard Alston decided against a fourth network and against just giving the existing networks the digital spectrum to do what they want with. He steered a middle course. He will lend existing networks digital spectrum for eight years from 2001 provided they invest the $500 million needed to broadcast digitally by 2001 in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and by 2004 everywhere else. They must simulcast in analogue until 2008 to give people plenty of time to buy converters or new TVs, though that might come back if demand for digital sets proves high. The three commercial networks are precluded from splitting their signal to offer more than one program or to enter the pay TV market. The ABC, however, can split its signal to provide an education channel out of prime time.
Provided the ABC and the SBS are properly funded for digital, this seems a sensible balance designed to encourage the investment to move Australia into the digital age. It is also important that the existing networks get enough spectrum to simulcast digital and analogue because every household in Australia cannot be expected to buy a digital set immediately, even if retailers could supply them.
The drawback is that it appears to give the present networks something for nothing and it seems like a waste of spectrum which could be used for greater diversity and choice. But there is no guarantee that rights to deliver extra programs or a fourth network would be used to deliver much more than repeats of existing fare. New product costs a lot to make. Moreover, the competitive pressure of a fourth network would be likely to dissipate a finite advertising dollar and delay investment in digital transmission. The networks will not be getting something for nothing; they will be required to make a very large investment in a very short time to bring digital television to Australia.
On the diversity question, the Government has opened some spectrum to non-commercial community television. It will also allow some new players some spectrum for datacasting. Newspaper and internet companies will be able to buy spectrum to send text, classified advertisements and the like over the airwaves with some form of integrated return interactivity (yet to be developed) via the phone lines.
To some extent the Government has been hamstrung by past decisions. It cannot reasonably cut existing pay TV providers adrift by allowing existing networks or others to use terrestrial digital transmission to provide pay TV over the airwaves. Pay TV uses satellite and cable at present. The advent of digital television, of course, demonstrates to some extent the dangers of attempting to regulate fast-moving technology. In many respects, digital TV makes cable- and satellite-delivered pay TV obsolete. Will some technology appear in the future to make this week’s decisions obsolete? That is a difficulty and a risk. However, it is not a ground for the government to wash its hands and surrender to the market alone as a regulator of the airwaves.
If spectrum were to be auctioned to the highest bidder with the winners able to do what they like with it, there would be no ABC or SBS and providers would jostle to capture the profitable part of the market with mass-appeal programs that attract advertising. All thoughts of quality, educational and high-standard children’s programs would go out the window. So, too, would go investment in regional Australia. Regional broadcasters face greater transmission costs to smaller audiences, so broadcasters would not make the investment in digital TV unless forced by government action.
Television is not like margarine. It plays far too important a part in Australian life and opinion-forming to be left to market forces. It requires community involvement, through the Parliament, to protect the interests of viewers throughout Australia in obtaining the best technology in a timely way.