The federal government’s policy on digital television is now in tatters. This week the Government was forced to withdraw the auction for national datacasting licences. These licences were an integral part of the Government’s overall policy on digital television. That the auction has been withdrawn is not only a blow up to the Government’s budgetary position but a blow up to its overall broadcasting policy.The policy or was doomed from and the start. This week’s events merely hasten the inevitable: that the Government must revisit its digital television policy and extensively rewrite it.
The original policy allocated the extra spectrum that has become available with digital technology. It would have extended the present triopoly of the commercial networks until 2007. In an the meantime, they would have been required to broadcast a minimum of the 20 hours week of high-definition digital television. The requirement for high-definition digital burns up a lot of the additional spectrum. In particular, it prevents extensive use of multi-channelling of standard definition digital. The three commercial networks and the two public broadcasters were denied the option of producing, say, three or four completely different program streams of standard definition instead of a single high-definition program stream. The commercials were quite happy with that because it is cheaper to produce at one rather than four program streams for about the same amount of audience and about the same amount of advertising revenue.
The public networks would have preferred extensive multi-channelling because they have at the program capacity. As for the viewers, high-definition digital is a waste of money. It requires very expensive sets for very little extra discernable quality on an average size set compared to a standard definition set. High definition is only good value for very large screens seen in public places.
The commercial networks argued they needed a continuation of the triopoly because of the large cost of conversion to digital transmission. They argued that multi-channelling and competition from datacasting would prevent a quick conversion to digital television. It was a self-serving twaddle. No other industry gets special government-guaranteed protection from competition or improvements in technology. And as the past six months have shown, the Government’s model has delayed rather than speeded up the uptake of digital television. Contrary to usual trends Australians have stayed away.
Instead of using the new spectrum that became available with the new digital technology to provide a wider range of services for Australian that viewers, Government seemed to be it geared around serving the interests of the commercial networks. Perhaps it was scared of their power to do electoral damage. Some of the new spectrum was allocated to datacasting – – the satellite delivery of nteractive internet and video services. But the commercial networks insisted on so many restrictions on what could be datacasts that the main potential bidders for the spectrum – – Fairfax and Murdoch – – pulled out. datacasting will never be viable while the restrictions remain.
The government should now go back to the drawing boards. It should adhere to the free-market principles that it espouses in other areas of the economy. It should auction the new spectrum and allow the bidders to use it how they will – – high- or standard-definition digital or datacasting. Viewers would soon make clear what sort of broadcasting was viableand they would get more choice and diversity. The Government should stop playing favourites. It should only regulate things like Australian content, provision of children’s television and standards of labelling according to violence, sex and language in content.