The Government’s proposals for the introduction of digital television are far too prescriptive. They give too much to the existing television networks. They shut out variety and diversity of services that would be available to consumers if the Government rethought its regime.
It seems as if the Government has tried to please all of the people all of the time and may end up pleasing none.
It is a question of rationing airspace. Before digital technology there was only room for the present five television networks (ABC, SBS and the three commercials) broadcasting analogue. Now digital can broadcast between the analogue bands and at either end of it. Much more spectrum has become available. That spectrum could be used by existing and new players to broadcast many more channels of television, data and/or higher quality signals. The higher quality signal come in two forms: standard digital definition television and high-definition television.
The question for the Government was how should this be used. The answer the Government gave this week was far too detailed.
At one extreme it could have auctioned off the spectrum an allowed the winners to transmit whatever they liked on what they bought. It would be up to consumer to buy whatever equipment they needed to receive those signals. At the other extreme is what the Government actually did. It set detailed prescriptions of who can broadcast what.
The five existing players must broadcast analogue for the next eight years; they must broadcast standard definition all the time and they must broadcast (except) 20 hours of high definition a week. The existing players must not multi-channel, that is, use the existing spectrum to deliver two or more different programs at the same time. Instead they have to deliver a single program in two or three different formats.
Newly available spectrum will be auctioned for datacasters. Datacasters are restricted from transmitting anything that remotely resembles a television program.
No new television players are allowed until 2007.
This is an absurdly inflexible regime. It is very likely that events will overtake it anyway. Technology moves so quickly that much of it is likely to be made irrelevant before it can be implemented. It would have been better to permit the five existing players decide for themselves how long they wanted to broadcast in analogue according to how events unfold, such as the take-up rate of digital sets. They should have been allowed to decide how many hours if any of high definition they wanted to broadcast dependent on how many viewers buy high definition sets.
Under the proposed model, two absurdities could easily unfold. In, say, six years’ time the networks might be forced to broadcast a spectrum-hungry analogue signal to 1 or 2 per cent of households and also broadcast 20 hours of spectrum-hungry high definition television to 1 or 2 per cent of wealthy people who might buy the sets.
The new spectrum should have been auctioned to new players to broadcast what they wanted.
In short the new technology should have opened opportunities for existing and new players to meet demands made by the viewing public, not those laid out by government.
It is a pretty poor effort for a government that otherwise espouses free-market principles. The proposals are so badly flawed they should be thrown out and the Government should start again.