The Australian people appear to be having a silent referendum on the Government’s digital television legislation. The vote is an overwhelming No.
The huge No vote and tiny Yes vote of about 15,000 households in the whole country appears to be making the Government crack. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that a Cabinet submission had been prepared recommending the present rules be changed to something sensible. All queries to the Minister’s office asking to confirm or deny were stonewalled. The Government would make an announcement in due course, the Minister, Senator Richard Alston, said.
The present rules were obviously idiotic. And the Government was told so at the time by experts, journalistic commentators and all in the industry except for the three big commercial television networks in whose interest the new rules were contrived in the first place.
The new regime requires broadcasting of High Definition Digital. That prevents multi-channelling – putting out several separate standard-definition digital programs (say one sport, one drama and one news) using the same bandwidth. Britain has opted for standard definition and has more programs on offer. The people love it. Commercial broadcasters hate it. They would prefer to deliver to their advertisers a single captive audience. It is cheaper for them, too.
But Australians – who usually love new technology – do not see enough benefit of High Definition Digital. A good plasma set costs about $14,000.
Unlike mobile phones, VCRs, CDs, DVDs or colour TV, there is no tangible improvement for such a huge outlay.
Trouble is, some consumers and the industry have already spent a lot of money on this white elephant, so it cannot be ditched altogether. It will be just another example of government making poor decisions that we all have to pay for.
The submission suggests that the 20 hours-a-week high-definition program requirement be converted to a 1040 hours a year or that the 20 hours would include the advertisements and community and program announcements. It could be shunted off prime time. While a network is broadcasting in high-definition it would have to stop broadcasting it other multi-channels.
The departments of Prime Minister, Treasury and Finance are arguing for the high-definition requirement to be dumped.
Now that sounds more like the deregulatory Coalition Government talking. Let those who pay for the spectrum (the commercial networks) use it free from government fetters (or fetters that the oligopoly of commercial broadcasters encourage the Government to impose on them — a bit like the old tariff protection). Once one commercial network or either of the public networks goes down the multi-channelling route, the others will have to follow, because it will be so popular.
Digital television will be snapped up when it offers more. Technically it can offer more. It can convert the present five program choices into about 15.
And that leads us to media ownership. Why not clip a multi-channel from the ABC and two from SBS and auction them as a package to develop a fourth commercial network. This Government wants to flog off public assets in other fields to promote competition and better consumer services, but is strangely reluctant to do so if it would create serious competition to the Packer empire. Or it could let the commercial networks use some of the multi-channelling for subscription services – as the Seven Network has denied it is hoping for.
At least let’s use this digital abundance for something more than a prettier version of what we have already got.
The Government’s digital television regime is like the worse of the old protected-industry policies of the 1950s and 1960s.
Or why not close down the analog system earlier, making space in the spectrum for even more choice and service.
Like tradespeople and other small business seizing on mobile phones for the extra productivity they give or families seizing on them for their extra safety and convenience, Australians will seize new technology if it has something worthwhile. If it is only a slightly tweaked version of the same mediocre television choice we have now – at a giant price — forget it.
Sure, some buffs think that the extra definition is worth the sacrifice of the multi-channelling. In the referendum of the television marketplace, few people are agreeing with them.