In September last year Communications Minister Helen Coonan called for a “digital action plan” to drive the uptake of digital television. This week she launched an issues paper on media ownership which was the equivalent of a “digital inaction plan”.
Last September, after five years, just 10 per cent of Australian households had taken up digital television (either by set-top converter or new digital receiver). Nothing much has happened since. Indeed, the main driver of digital take-up is pay TV, not a slightly improved image of the five free-to-air channels.
Australians normally love new gadgets, but, of course, they are not going to shell out for digital converters or new sets while there is nothing extra on offer. And while ever the existing ownership rules kow-tow to the big media companies there will be nothing extra on offer. And Australia will remain a television back-water. Many third world countries have more free-to-air television choice than Australia.
The rules mooted in the discussion paper follow the pattern of protection for the big media companies that began from before television started 50 years ago.
The discussion paper suggests cross-media-ownership rules change. At present a company is restricted to the ownership of one of newspaper, radio or television in one market. Foreigners are restricted to 15 per cent ownership of a broadcast licence. Under the old and proposed rules pay TV and magazines are ignored.
Under the proposed rules a company will be able to own one television and one radio licence and as many newspapers as it wants. But there must be at least five owners in a major market and four in a regional market. However, each radio licence requires a separate owner it means, in effect, at least seven owners in Sydney where there are seven radio licences and similarly six in Melbourne.
The cross-media changes have attracted the most attention. But the most significant part of the paper is what it does not change – no fourth commercial network and no multi-channelling for a long time. Multi-channelling would allow four or five digital signals to go out where only one goes out now – even more if the analog system is shut down. It would mean a total of 20 or 30 separate programs could be delivered by the three commercial and two government networks.
Even if they only did half that, Australians would flock to the retailers to buy new digital television sets or set-top converters. Now, that would be a “digital action plan”.
But no, that would upset the big players. James Packer’s Nine network loves to pack all its viewers and advertisers on to just one program stream. It is cheaper and pays more. If the public broadcasters were allowed four or five channels they would probably take market share from the commercials because they could air more of their more diverse content.
The Government did not want to upset the big players. So in return for the major concession of allowing the big television players to buy radio licences and newspapers ,what concession would the government get? Nothing. What would consumers get? Nothing.
There is a minor sop to consumers. Two new digital channels will be allowed, but will be restricted to “snack” and “niche” material and not be like free-to-air television. They can do the stock market and weather.
This restrictive regime will stay into force until the end of 2012 when multi-channelling will be allowed, or sooner if the changeover from analog goes well. But that is a circular proposition. How can the changeover from analog to digital go faster unless there is a reason to upgrade and the only reason to upgrade is if there is multi-channelling.
It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence. Why doesn’t the Government just say what the real reason for prohibiting multi-channelling is – it does not want to upset the big boys. They can be so helpful at election time, or at least not a nuisance.
Viewers should be furious – another six years of restrictive rubbish when the technology is there to do better.
The Government is always talking about choice and competition? But not with media. With the media it is restriction and protection. What other industry gets decades of protection from new technology? In any other industry you adapt, innovate, invest in new technology or die.
The Government’s determination to help the big boys even ran to squashing the idea of advertisements on the ABC because it might drain some advertising revenue from them. And this from a Government that usually worships private enterprise, commercial reality and competition.
There was one thing in which Coonan was spot on.
“There is a compelling case for change and if the Government does not act, then there is a genuine risk that Australia will become a dinosaur of the analog age,” she said.
Well, we already are. And will remain so long as the Government touts as change proposals which will change very little – like this discussion paper.
The big hope for choice and competition is not government-driven changes, but technology, in particular the internet.
The roll out of broadband is faster than the take-up of digital – mainly because broadband has something to offer. Last year broadband subscribers grew 80 per cent to 1.67 million. Pay TV grew just 6.3 per cent to 1.69 million and digital grew by a few percentage points (SUBS: percentage points is correct).
Before long video pod-casting, live streaming and video on demand will be available over the internet. And most homes will have it by 2012 when the Government will finally allow multi-channelling. When the vast majority have broadband with video, it will almost impossible for Governments to make rules about who sells or delivers free what content into the home. Some of it will be wireless broadband.
As Foxtel chief executive Kim Williams said last week, “There is no regulatory impediment to broadband taking out a whole football code’s content exclusively and in its entirety.”
He said, a broadband provider could deal directly with studios, cutting pay TV operators out.
A government might try to regulate broadband internet television, but it would have a difficult time. If you set up a free-to-air television transmitter in a major city, you will soon be noticed. But who can control the myriad of internet service providers.
It will be a bit like when video players arrived. Video hire stores sprung up everywhere and a $600 million industry push content to television sets was created in no time and without government regulation. We were all the better for it. We had choice and competition.
Much has been made on the changes to cross-media ownership. The fear is that diversity of opinion might be lost if a newspaper-TV-radio chain sets up a single newsroom. Well, in these days of converging technologies that makes a bit of sense. This very week, for example, some newspapers are offering video and sound bites over the net and the ABC has been putting out a newspaper on-line for a decade.
In any event, most breaking news comes out of the newspapers and the broadcasters (especially the commercial ones) follow it, so it would not matter much if the newsrooms were amalgamated. Some regional markets would be better served. At present, what passed as commercial radio and television news bulletins (if any) is laughable.
But it would have been better if there had been a fourth television network and multi-channelling. This would have given more air time for news.
Another reason it may not matter is that for all the attention on media ownership, not a great deal is likely to be for sale. And no-one will rush to buy given the burnt fingers after the last shake-out 20 years ago.
Then the buyers moved into television as newspaper companies were forced to divest under the then-new cross-media rules. Now the television owners are quite happy and the major newspaper chain (Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd) is selling nothing. Maybe a television network might attack Fairfax or Western Australian Newspaper – the only major holdings with diverse shareholdings. More likely, though, they will continue their interests in internet assets.
In short, don’t expect anything to happen very quickly and there is no need to shell out for a digital set or box for more than six years. By then most analog sets would have died anyway – relieving the Government of the politically sensitive task of forcing people into expensive new technology that will not add to their lives for quite some time.
Perhaps the most downplayed of the proposed changes are that the Government, not the Australian Australian Communications and Media Authority, will get control over issuing broadcast licences and the Treasurer will get control over which foreigners get to own which media assets. Now there’s a concentration of media power.