Chapter 6
Other Issues
Effects on Australian Industry Development
6.1 Digital conversion will involve expenditure for broadcasters of about
$1-$1.5 billion, [1] as well as the replacement
of Australia's 10-11 million analog television sets (or addition of set-top
boxes) during the simulcast period. The Committee considered the implications
of this for the Australian manufacturing industry.
6.2 It seems to be accepted that most of the transmission equipment will
have to be sourced overseas:
The most critical item is the ordering and delivering of transmission
and other equipment, most of which will be sourced from North America,
Europe and Japan… Some significant costs, such as installation costs,
radiofrequency hardware and distribution equipment can be sourced from
Australian suppliers, but to specify Australian manufacture would probably
increase costs, due to lack of competition. For HDTV production, most
equipment could only be sourced from the main suppliers of such equipment,
particularly the main competing Japanese companies. [2]
6.3 In the case of television receivers, the question arises whether
the choice between the US and the European digital transmission systems
has any implications for opportunities for Australian industry. FACTS
commented:
At present there is only one significant manufacturer in Australia for
television receivers, Panasonic. As far as FACTS is aware, Panasonic has
allegiance to neither the US or European [digital transmission] system.
[3]
6.4 But it may be argued that in the choice of system, standard benefits
to consumers must be paramount:
At the end of the process, when we have considered each of these parameters,
we will produce a document which will be part of the recommendation we
make to the department. This will be the industry recommendation about
the system which will be best for Australia, in other words, what is going
to be best for the audience… broadcasters are about maximising the
audience… If we cannot find a benefit in this for the consumers,
the consumers are not going to spend money to buy new receivers. [4]
6.5 FACTS believes that in any case `it is unlikely that large-scale
manufacture or assembly of digital receivers will eventuate here, as this
is largely located in low-wage countries nowadays. However, opportunities
for developing areas of technical excellence will be present if Australia
commits to the early introduction of digital television… We already
know of one local manufacturer who has benefited from digital television
studies in Australia for making a high-technology product attractive to
the United States broadcasting system.' [5]
6.6 The Committee recommends that the government should further consider
means of encouraging opportunities for Australian industry arising from
digital conversion, and should consider requiring commercial broadcasters
to file industry development plans. A provision on this could be analagous
to the industry development provisions of the Telecommunications Act
1997.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the government should further consider
means of encouraging opportunities for Australian manufacturing industry
arising from digital conversion.
Improved Access to Television Services for People with Disabilities
Captioning Standards – Clause 35
6.7 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
(Clause 35 of proposed Schedule 4 of the BSA) requires all programs transmitted
during prime viewing hours (6:00 pm to 10:30 pm) and all news and current
affairs programs transmitted outside prime viewing hours to be captioned.
[6] The Committee notes that `it is intended
that these standards would be required to be observed by free to air television
broadcasters in relation to programs transmitted in both analog and digital
mode'. [7]
6.8 Subclause 35(6) makes it clear that FTA broadcasters will not be
required to observe captioning standards for analog or digital television
services before 1 January 2001, when they commence digital broadcasting,
[8] and the date for the captioning of all programs
has not been specified in the legislation. The year 2010 has been mentioned
to the Committee. [9]
6.9 One of the concerns of the commercial television networks was partly
removed when, on 3 June 1998, an amendment introduced into the House of
Representatives inserted a new subclause 35 (8). As a result of the amendment,
captioning of commercial advertisements and sponsorship is recognised
as a decision for the advertiser rather than the broadcaster and is now
exempted from the captioning requirements in clause 35.
6.10 The extension of captioning will assist 1.7 million Australians
who are deaf, hard of hearing or of non-English speaking background. A
number of submissions supported the captioning initiatives in the Bill.
[10] The Australian Caption Centre congratulated
the `federal legislators on framing such forward-thinking and socially
responsible legislation'. [11]
6.11 Ms Germanos-Koutsounadis explained that, in addition to having a
hearing impairment, she supported captioning because as a representative
of the Ethnic Childcare Family and Community Services Cooperative, she
believed that:
…captioning will benefit children from non-English speaking backgrounds
who speak their home language before they go to school, as they will be
able to hear and read the captioning content and this will assist them
to learn English. [12]
6.12 One issue before the Committee was that of timing, and a number
of views were represented in the evidence. The National Working Party
on Captioning would like to have the Bill amended so that all Australian
television is captioned by the year 2010. [13]
The Australian Caption Centre pointed out that the levels of captioning
reached in the United Kingdom and the United States are ahead of Australia.
[14]
6.13 A witness before the Committee, Mr Tayeh, encouraged the Committee
to consider the introduction of closed captioning of all programs by the
year 2000, to include the Sydney Olympic Games, instead of the year 2010
as planned. He indicated that he would support his submission to the inquiry
with a further petition to the Senate of more than 43 000 signatures.
[15]
6.14 By mandating closed captioning services for prime time television
programs, the Bill has focussed attention on an important social issue.
The Committee recognises that there is a cost involved but it would like
to encourage all broadcasters to continue to increase their level of captioning
at the earliest opportunity.
Captioning of Overseas News
6.15 The Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), while supportive of captioning,
expressed its concern that under clause 35 (4) (b), it could be required
to provide captioning for the overseas news bulletins that it broadcasts
(some 6.5 hours of news in 18 languages) direct from the satellite each
week:
The captioning in the languages concerned…would be so difficult
and so costly that SBS would almost certainly have to cease providing
this service. [16]
6.16 Since those broadcasts cater for a niche market and are likely to
duplicate the English language news on a particular day of broadcast,
the Committee acknowledges that SBS has a reasonable concern in this area.
Audio Description for the Visually Impaired
6.17 The Committee received evidence that the needs of the visually impaired
as well as the hearing impaired should be further considered in the migration
to new technologies. [17] Conversion to digital
television provides an opportunity for the expansion of audio description
services.
6.18 `Audio description' provides narrated descriptions of the key visual
elements of films, videos and television programs without interfering
with their audio dialogue. It is anticipated that it will be used increasingly
in museums and other public spaces, in classrooms and on computers. `Video
description' is currently available in Australia for a limited number
of videos (for example, available for loan through support groups for
the blind and visually impaired such as the Royal Victorian Institute
for the Blind). [18]
6.19 In Australia, `audio description' is already being used for sports
or events, for example when the radio coverage of a cricket match is used
simultaneously with the images from the analog television set.
6.20 In North America, three organisations currently provide video description
over broadcast and/or cable analog television. Programming includes educational
and scientific shows as well as dramas and movies. Three different methods
of distribution to the audience are used (open description, description
over the Secondary Audio Program (SAP) channel and description over a
news reading service). [19] Broadcasters also
need to have a stereo broadcasting capability and a SAP exciter. [20]
6.21 With the advent of digital television, the whole process will become
much easier. The delivery of multiple audio channels is part of the basic
system. If a broadcast program contains audio description, then this can
be transmitted through one of the available channels. The impact on the
overall bit usage would be minimal. While the delivery cost would be minimal,
there would be costs associated with the production of the audio description.
6.22 The Broadcasting Act 1996 (UK) requires that from the 10th anniversary
of the introduction of a digital service (1998) at least 50 per cent of
non-exempt programming must be subtitled and 10 per cent of non-exempt
programming must include audio-description.
6.23 The Committee considered that a number of issues regarding audio
description in Australia were still to be resolved, such as:
- what types of programs are suitable for audio description (where the
content is not available from alternative sources such as radio)
- whether audio description should be an obligation on broadcasters
for new (not archival) material, or simply an option
- how much assistance from the not-for-profit sector would be required
and likely additional funding to that sector
- introduction of audio broadcasting using analog television or wait
for digital.
- Some audio broadcasting issues were specific to the introduction of
digital television, such as:
- the adoption of either the ATSC or DVB standard and the resulting
compatability questions
- the timing of the introduction of audio description services to accompany
digital television (year 2000 or 2010?).
6.24 The Committee considered that audio broadcasting prior to the introduction
of digital television should be evaluated by broadcast and telecommunications
industry groups, user groups and consumer groups.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the issue of audio description for digital
television be referred to the high level Consultative Group on Digital
Television established by the Minister for Communications, the Information
Economy and the Arts on 29 April 1998 for report by the Minister to the
Parliament before the middle of 1999.
6.25 The Committee was concerned that with closed captions as well as
subtitles, and enhanced programming, the screen might be filled with text.
It sought clarification on this issue. Apart from open captions (subtitles),
which are `burned into' program footage, additional closed captions and
enhancements are optional and it is likely that they may be opened and
closed as required, in much the same way that windows on a PC may be opened
and closed.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the planning committee advising on standards
and compatibility requirements consider the issue of standardising open
and closed captioning, audio description and other enhancements for viewers
with disabilities in order to achieve a simple-to-use approach.
Conclusion
6.26 This has been a very interesting inquiry for all the Committee members
who have been involved with it. The Committee has carefully considered
all the arguments put to it. The Committee recognises that much remains
to be resolved in order to ensure an orderly transition to digital broadcasting
for the current free-to-air broadcasting services. However, the Committee
is convinced that the passage of the Television Broadcasting Services
(Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition)
Bill 1998 is a necessary first step to ensure that when Australian television
operates fully in digital mode, Australia will still maintain its world
class television system and that there will be minimal disruption to consumers
during the transition period.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that the Bills be passed.
Kay Patterson
Chairman
Footnotes
[1] Submission No. 2a (Federation of Australian
Commercial Televisions Station), p. 10. This figure exceeds the figure
of $500-$750 million quoted in paragraph 1.25 by the addition of running
costs during the simulcast period.
[2] Submission No. 2 (Federation of Australian
Commercial Televisions Station), p. 17, No. 2a, p. 10
[3] Submission No. 2a (Federation of Australian
Commercial Televisions Station), p. 10
[4] Transcript of Evidence, p. 26 (Mr Knowles),
27 May 1998.
[5] Submission No. 2 (Federation of Australian
Commercial Televisions Station), p. 18.
[6] As the EM explains: Captioning may be either
`open' or `closed'. Closed captioning constitutes teletext based supertext
subtitles on television programs for the benefit or people with a hearing
loss. Closed captions are more extensive than subtitles, because they
give a written description of background noises as well as what is actually
being aid. Being a teletext service, closed captioning is not a broadcasting
service for the purposes of the BSA. At present, closed captions require
a decoder in order for the captions to be seen. By contrast, open captions
are `burned in' to program footage and can be seen at any time.
[7] Explanatory Memorandum, Television Broadcasting
Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition)
Bill 1998, p. 52
[8] As above, p.53.
[9] Submission No. 6 (National Working Party
on Captioning), p. 4; Transcript of evidence, p. 54 (Mr Tayeh)
[10] Submission No. 6 (National Working Party
on Captioning), p. 4, Submission No. 7 (Australian Caption Centre), Submission
No. 11, 11 a, 11b (Mr Tayeh)
[11] Submission No. 7 (Australian Caption Centre),
p. 4.
[12] Transcript of evidence, p. 58 (Ms Germanos-Koutsounadis)
[13] Submission No. 6 (National Working Party
on Captioning), p. 4
[14] Submission No. 7 (Australian Caption Centre),
p. 2. The Australian Caption Centre considers that the levels of captioning
are directly attributable to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996
(UK) and the Telecommunications Act 1996 (USA).
[15] Submission No. 11 and 11 a (Mr Tayeh)
[16] Submission No. 3 (SBS – Special Broadcasting
Service), p. 4.
[17] Submission No. 31b (Association for the
Blind), 30 pp.
[18] Submission No. 32 (Royal Victorian Institute
for the Blind), p. 1.
[19] Packer, Jaclyn, 1996, Video description
in North America in Burger, D. (ed) New Technologies
in the Education of the Visually Handicapped. John Libbey Eurotext,
p.103-107.
[20] Mr Larry Goldberg, briefing on `Closed
Captioning and Video Description of Broadcast Programming' to the third
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital
Television Broadcasters (January 16th 1998), p.19. Also at http://www.benton.org/policy/tv/briefing1.html