This week the Federal Government will find itself squeezed between a Labor-Democrat majority in the Senate and the interests of the commercial television broadcasters, notably those of Australia’s richest man, Kerry Packer. The Government’s plan for digital television will go before the Senate. This plan, unlike the GST, is not part of any specific electoral mandate. Labor and the Democrats are well within their rights to propose amendments to the plan. It is a deeply flawed plan for the use of the vastly increased extra capacity that comes with digital broadcasting. Technically, it would enable the existing broadcasters to each put out several different program streams in place of the single one that each puts out now. It would also enable datacasting which would put permanent on-line internet facilities into the home which could include video on demand and live programs for a full range of educational and entertainment products.
The Government, however, proposes to restrict the existing five broadcasters (three commercials, the ABC and SBS) to a single stream of programming. They would use the extra digital facility to be taken up by high-definition broadcasts of the single program stream so good that people could have an image the size of a wall if they could afford the receiving set.
This suits the commercial broadcasters. They do not want any extra competition or erosion of market share. Nor do they want to waste money on extra programming streams if they can capture their advertising recipients in a single program stream.
Labor and the Democrats rightly propose amendments to this narrow, opportunity-forsaking model. The amendments do not go far enough, but they are a start. They would allow the ABC and SBS the chance to broadcast one extra program stream each. In an ideal world the five existing broadcasters should be allowed to divide their spectrum how they see fit – it could be four program streams at very good standard definition digital signal. It could be one at high definition. Datacasters, too, should be allowed to drive the technology to its full advantage, free of government stricture.
The Government argues that the commercial broadcasters need protection from datacast and extra ABC competition because they will have to spend huge amounts of money to convert to digital. This argument runs counter to the Government’s economic philosophy in every other industry. There can only be one reason for it: the Government is scared of the power of big media and wants to pander to it. Why should the Government provide protection against competition? And why should it stultify innovation to protect existing players? Since it came to office the Government, till, now has been a consistent proponent of innovation and competition. It has stood for competition and innovation in telecommunications, the milk industry, electricity, financial services, to name a few. Digital television should be no exception.
The Government should welcome the Labor and Democrat amendments. They will enable it to get off the hook. It can say to Mr Packer, well we did our best.
Another argument for giving protection to the commercial broadcasters is that without it they will not invest and Australia would miss out of digital television. This is twaddle and the Government knows it. If the present broadcasters are not interested in investing in digital without protection, there is a queue of others who would happily buy the spectrum and invest in the transmitters. As Australia has seen in other industries, protection leads to less innovation and poorer services to the public.
Digital broadcasting presents a huge opportunity for Australia, particularly rural and regional Australia. It could open a huge range of extra services. Constant, cheap internet connection over the airwaves across the whole nation. Half a dozen more television program streams providing more sport, education, information and entertainment. This must not be sacrificed to pandering to the special interests of the existing commercial broadcasters.