In the worst sort of Orwellian double-speak, Communications Minister Richard Alston told Parliament this week, “”Australians will have greater choice in their television viewing and the types of services they can get through their televisions sets as a result of the Government’s digital television and datacasting legislation introduced to Parliament today.”
Utter misleading rubbish.
The legislation is designed from beginning to end to restrict the television choices Australians could otherwise have through digital technology, all in the interests of the big three commercial networks.
There is greater choice. You will get the choice of four different ways of seeing the same five programs you see now. You can have your same TV Guide of five streams of programs in either analogue (as now), or analogue set with digital receiving box to improve the picture so it has no ghosting or snowing, or buy a $1500 standard definition digital set which will give wide format and really excellent reception without ghosting or snowing, or buy a $4500 high-definition set which will give you cinema quality viewing.
But whichever method you choose you will still have the same five channels you get now. Yet digital offers the opportunity for each of the existing television networks (the three commercials, the ABC and SBS) to multichannel. That is, they can put three or four separate programs in the spectrum that now houses just one. In short, we could have 20 separate program schedules instead of five. But the Government’s legislation announced this week will prohibit multi-channelling except in very restrictive circumstances which will only help the commercial channels.
The Government has justified this by demanding that the three commercial and two national broadcasters deliver a minimum 20 hours a week of prime-time cinema-quality hig-definition broadcast. Cinema quality (or high-definition) television burns up all of the additional space in the new digital spectrum denying the possibily of multi-channelling three standard-definition signals and the existing analogue signal in the same space.
The very terminology is devised to help the masses swallow this appalling policy. It talks of “”standard” definition, as if it were inferior and that we should opt for “”high” definition. In fact, standard definition is exquisite television – wide-format, no ghosting and no snowing. High definition is cinema quality and completely unnecessary unless you want a television screen the size of loungeroom wall. If the set is smaller than 100 centimetres wide it is almost impossible to tell the difference between standard- and high-definition.
So upon the altar of having a cinema in the home that only the very rich will buy, the Government has determined that it will be illegal for the commercial and the national broadcasters to multi-channel. We are being condemned to watch the same five channels as we do now; we only get a choice as to how well-defined we want our crap.
The public is barely aware of this despite earlier drafts which were finalised last week – hidden in Budget week.
In the case of the ABC and SBS this is a shocking waste of opportunity. The two national broadcasters have enough material to run three programs each in standard definition. But the Government won’t let them because they would steal market share from the commercials. Labor will probably go along with it because they are equally scared of the power of the commercial networks.
The commercials prefer to stay with one signal. It concentrates their advertising audience and it is less costly that putting out three or four signals. But why must the Government constrain the ABC and SBS? Even if the commercials want to pump out just one program of high-definition rubbish, why must the ABC and SBS be similarly constrained? It is because if they were allowed to multi-channel, they would take market share from the commercials.
So the Government has used the excuse of a requirement to broadcast in high definition to restrict all five broadcasters to a single channel. The public misses out. Senator Alston calls it choice. It is precisely the opposite.
There is one exception to the prohibition against multi-channelling. It favours the commercial networks. If a sporting event runs over schedule time the signal can be split so viewers can watch the end of the game. Last week’s announcement expanded that to allow the networks to multi-channel if there are two or more events of the same sport at the same venue. It means that the commercials will be able to multi-channel the big tennis tournaments and much of the Olympics. But the ABC is not allowed to do four channels of news, education, drama and comedy.
It gets worse. The Government gave the commercial networks the extra spectrum to broadcast digitally. This is bizarre given that the Budget suggests that the extra spectrum for mobile phones is worth $2.6 billion at auction.
So we have a Coalition which says it is committed to choice, competition, a level playing field, user pays, no subsidisation, no favourites and no monopolies behaving in exactly the opposite way. It is subsidising an anti-competitive tri-opoly, restricting new players and restricting consumers’ choice.
It is hypocrisy and bad policy and done because the Coalition is scared of the power of the network broadcasters.
This week’s rules also regulate datacasting. In theory datacasting is the provision of interactive services via cable, satellite or telephone cables. People can get material on demand. Potential datacasters are Murdoch’s News Ltd, Fairfax and Australian Associated Press. They have oodles of material to make available to the public via computer or television with a mouse. Just like commercial networks do not like the thought of extra competition from the ABC and SBS, they also fear competition from datacasters.
What has the Government done? It has behaved like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. It has defined datacasting to mean exactly what it says it means: “”anything likely to compete with the commercial networks that we want to protect”. Seriously, the words in the Act virtually say that. It has defined datacasting not according to the method of dissemination, but according to what is being sent. If you send drama, comedy or game shows it is deemed to be an illegal television broadcast. If you send written words and still images and limited news video it is deemed to be legitimate datacasting. There is no foundation in logic, principle or public policy for this. It is a blatant piece of anti-competitive protection for the existing networks.
The way digital television is being introduced by the Government is scandalous hypocrisy and against the public interest. Television viewers should get interested and protest or sit back and cop a diet of the same rubbish we get now but digitally enhanced.