AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS
Comments: Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill
1998
This Bill outlines the Government's policy objectives for the conversion
of analogue terrestrial television to digital terrestrial television broadcasting
services (DTTB). The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy
and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston announced the Coalition Government's
digital policy on 24 March 1998. The Television Broadcasting
Service (Digital Conversion) Bill (the Digital Bill) and the Datacasting
Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 were introduced into the House of Representatives
on 8 April 1998. The Bills were referred to the Senate Environment, Recreation,
Communication and the Arts Legislation Committee on 14 May 1998,
with a reporting date of 22 June 1998.
The Democrats consider that this Bill is being rushed through the Parliament
without time for adequate scrutiny. It should be noted that the Democrats,
ALP and Greens opposed this extremely short deadline for inquiry. This
report also notes the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns about the imposition of a datacasting
levy by regulation [1].
The Democrats accept that the shift to digital technology is inevitable.
The conversion from analogue to digital broadcasting provided the Government
with a unique opportunity to reassess broadcasting and telecommunications
policy without proscribed outcomes. It remains to be seen whether this
Bill actually provides this outcome. So, while the conversion to DTTB
is inevitable, the Democrats do not support the Government's attempt to
fast track this legislation, in its current form, through the Parliament.
The change from analogue to digital is the most significant telecommunications
development Australia has confronted. It is crucial to get the policy
and the legislation right in the first instance.
This legislation raises many more questions about digital terrestrial
television broadcasting than it provides answers. This is evidenced in
the number of inquiries to be undertaken prior to 1 January 2001 and the
number of outstanding issues confronting the Senate Committee.
Rather than being a minority report per se, this report is a general
commentary on aspects of the Government's digital conversion policy and
on recommendations made by the Committee in its majority report.
Background
Free-to-air television services are currently terrestrial analogue broadcasts,
where signals are transmitted via towers and received into homes via antennas
in the form of a continuous wave. With digital terrestrial television
broadcasting (DTTB) the signal is transmitted in binary code form –
or in bits of information. The advantage of this digital data signal is
that it can be manipulated, or compressed, allowing a more efficient use
of the broadcast spectrum, and a potential for a greater variety of services.
Background noise and interference can be easily removed, improving both
audio and visual reception. The conversion to digital technology requires
conversion of the broadcasting transmission infrastructure and television
receivers.
DTTB systems have been designed to operate using the same channel bandwidth
as analogue systems to enable integration with the current use of the
spectrum. The ABA digital planning specialist group recommended that all
current free-to-air stations be granted 7 MHz of spectrum for DTTB transmission
[2]. A single DTTB transmitter provides the
capacity to send approximately 20 million bits per second (20 mega bits)
of data to the home. This signal is sufficient to provide one high definition
television broadcast (HDTV) of a sporting event, or possibly two high
definition movie channels. The signal is also capable of providing 3 or
4 live sports programs equivalent to current broadcasting quality. It
might also be enough to provide up to 6 `talking heads' programs. This
capacity to replace a single analogue channel with several other channels
is referred to as “multi-channelling”. The equipment which allows
the `data pipe' to be manipulated in such a manner is referred to as a
“multiplex”. The spare capacity created by digital transmission
can also be used to provide captioning, news and market information and
other data services. These services (whether in the form of data, text,
sound or images) are referred to as “datacasting” services.
On 18 June 1998, the DTTB Selection Panel agreed that the European system
(DVB) would be the Australian standard [3].
Apart from the standard and its compatibility with the PAL analogue system,
Government policy should remain mindful of the cost of consumer equipment
and the ability of either system to achieve well constructed spectrum
usage objectives. It is expected that since the decision on the standard
has now been made, the costs to consumers will be able to be more accurately
determined.
In this context, the Democrats endorse Recommendation 4 of the Committee
(Chapter 2, p. 21), that there should be a compatibility of approach
for the consumer in standards necessary for DTTB.
It is extremely difficult to estimate the costs of conversion from analogue
to digital terrestrial television broadcasting. In its submission, the
Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) estimated
the costs of conversion for the three commercial networks to be somewhere
between $500 and $740 million in capital investment in the initial stages
of conversion. FACTS also claim the conversion will add approximately
$30 to 40 million to their annual operating costs [4].
The Government has not had these costs independently assessed, but have
taken them for granted, basing its policy entirely on these figures. In
his personal message, the Minister stated that:
The Government is loaning the free-to-air networks, free of up-front
charges, the spectrum required to provide HDTV during their simulcast
period…because the networks will effectively have to pay twice their
normal transmission costs in addition to the estimated $500 million for
new digital transmitters, studios and production facilities. [5]
To receive digital television, consumers will require either a new digital
television set, or a set-top box to convert the digital signal back to
analogue. The use of a converter box will not improve the quality of the
picture but it will eliminate interference such as ghosting and will provide
CD quality sound. To receive HDTV, consumers will have to purchase a wide-screen
high-definition television set.
As well as receiving DTTB the set-top box will also enable consumers
to receive digital cable and satellite services, and connect to the telephone
system via a modem. This creates a path for the convergence of telecommunications,
television and computing services. This creates an even greater imperative
to ensure the digital legislation and the Government's policy allows for
new technological possibilities and consumer choice.
Just as the conversion costs are varied so too the cost of equipment
to consumers. Accompanying the Minister's announcement on 24 March 1998,
the Department of Communications and the Arts stated that:
It is difficult to predict how much sets will cost and the price could
fall rapidly once the market is established. Large wide-screen digital
sets capable of displaying high definition video will probably cost several
thousand dollars, while conventionally sized sets are likely to approach
the prices of current sets. The price of set top boxes will depend upon
their functionality, but will probably be a few hundred dollars. [6]
But the Australian Consumers' Association [7]
predicts the prices of television sets will be much higher, perhaps $15,000
a television set. And this is before consumers have to replace their antennas
and video recorders.
Planning Digital Conversion
The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) have been monitoring developments
in digital television since 1993 when a specialist group comprising industry
and government representatives examined options for DTTB systems for Australia.
The final report of the group, Digital Terrestrial Television was
presented to the ABA in 1997. The report recommended (amongst other things)
- Australia should adopt a single standard for DTTB after technical
trials in Australia of candidate systems
- DTTB should be implemented with HDTV available from the outset
- All existing licensed national and commercial television stations
should be given access to 7MHz of bandwidth and be given full control
over the use of the delivery capacity of that channel
- The year 2000 would be a useful commencement date for permanent DTTB
broadcasting in Australia. (It should be noted that the report does
not specify a timeframe for legislative decision, but does find that
the Minister should work towards an early announcement of the DTTB policy
framework for Australia).
- The termination of the PAL system should be driven by market forces
and subject to regular review [8]
The Government's Decision
On 24 March 1998, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy
and the Arts announced the Government's decision on the introduction of
digital television.
- The commercial and national free-to-air television broadcasters will
be loaned 7MHz of spectrum free of up front charge. In return they will
be required to simulcast their existing service in analogue and digital
for 8 years, after which time the analogue system will be terminated,
and they will have to return the equivalent of their loaned spectrum
to the Commonwealth.
- The free-to-air broadcasters will be required to commence digital
broadcasts in metropolitan areas from 1 January 2001. Regional areas
are allowed three years extra planning and start-up time, to 1 January
2004.
- Following the commencement of DTTB the free-to-air broadcasters will
be required to broadcast minimum levels of HDTV with that level increasing
over time. If the requirement is not met, the broadcasters will have
to return their loaned spectrum to the Commonwealth.
- Free-to-air broadcasters will be able to use spare spectrum space
to provide datacasting services, but will have to pay fees to do this
(the fees are the subject of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill
1998). Spectrum not required by the free-to-air broadcasters for DTTB
will be auctioned to other datacasting service providers. These services
will commence at the same time as DTTB transmission. Existing free-to-air
broadcasters will not be permitted to bid for this spectrum. The definition
of datacasting is subject to a statutory review to be commenced by 1
January 2001.
- Free-to-air broadcasters will not be permitted to multi-channel or
provide subscription television services. They will, however, be permitted
to provide enhancements directly linked to the programs being simulcast
on analogue.
- A prohibition on the entry to new players will be in force until 2008,
subject to review by 1 January 2005.
- Australian local content provisions will continue to apply to DTTB.
In addition, all free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide
captioning for all prime time programs and for all news and current
affairs programs outside prime time.
- The Government is considering whether the national broadcasters –
ABC and SBS – should be permitted to provide non-commercial multi-channel
service, in line with their Charter obligations.
- Reviews undertaken prior to 2001 and 2005 by government and industry
representatives will advise the Government on ongoing issues relating
to regulation and technical matters.
The Democrats agree that the Government needs to provide certainty to
the broadcasting industry in the conversion from analogue to DTTB. However,
we remain to be convinced that the Government has provided the best and
most workable model for the delivery of digital broadcasting for the majority
of Australian households. From the evidence of several witnesses appearing
before the Senate Committee, members of the industry and consumer advocates
share the Democrats' concerns. We all agree that the conversion to digital
is inevitable and necessary. We do not want to halt the process. Quite
the contrary. We are concerned, however, that the Government's policy
mandates the technology and its use and in doing so may favour the existing
commercial networks, to the detriment of other service providers and consumers.
Precisely because of the number of questions which are unanswered, and
the complexity of issues subject to ongoing review, the Democrats endorse
Recommendation 5 of the Committee (Chapter 3, p. 29), that all reviews
scheduled to be carried out before the year 2001 be undertaken at the
earliest possible opportunity.
The Democrats believe that the Australian Parliament should have an overriding
concern with these matters, and should therefore have an integral role
to play in the processes and findings of the statutory reviews to take
place before 2001 and 2005.
The Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations [9]
had put forward a very strong case in support for the Government's legislation,
with the exception of the prohibition on commercial stations to `multi-channel'
[10]. Indeed, FACTS is almost fatalistic about
the need for the legislation to be passed in the Senate prior to the 1998
winter recess, and certainly prior to the next election. They claim that
the legislation should pass to enable the commercial broadcasters to more
effectively plan their implementation and equipment purchases.
FACTS support the introduction of mandated HDTV, believing it to be the
driving factor in the take up of digital receivers amongst Australian
viewers. However, they also maintain that eventually, they will need to
be able to offer multi-channelling to enhance a station's service to viewers
[11]. This underpins FACTS costing and argument
for the spectrum loan and provides the legislative framework. At this
time it is difficult to know whether the commercial networks will actually
provide HDTV services, or overtime, will seek to multi-channel.
Conversion Costs
FACTS submit that the overall capital expenditure associated with digital
transition may be as high as $750 million over the next five years for
metropolitan stations and up to $245 million for regional broadcasters.
Simulcast costs of between $30 and $50 million per annum are also
estimated, with an all up cost to the industry of approximately $1 billion.
FACTS do not detail how these figures are derived. Hambros Corporate Finance
Limited provided FACTS with cost estimations, although FACTS believes
these have been under estimated [12]. If the
industry cannot provide the Committee with a detailed cost estimation,
it is difficult to believe these figures. Of this, the network pay a tiny
$178 million in licence fees (derived as a proportion of their total advertising
revenue). In comparison, the ABA reports that the 15 mainland capital
city services earned $2018.2 million in 1996/97, representing 78.9% of
the industry revenue. This revenue generated a broadcasting profit of
$346.5 million [13]. This is clearly not a
fledgling industry.
The ABC estimates digital conversion will cost under $200 million and
the national broadcaster offered to partially self-fund conversion by
“rationalising property holdings” in line with recommendations
in the Mansfield review. However, the Government mistrusted the ABC's
estimates, and referred their funding submission to Arthur Anderson Corporate
Finance for an independent assessment. AACF found in favour of the ABC's
estimates [14]. Despite this, the Government
has only provided the ABC with $20.8 million over the next five years
[15]. This figure does not include transmission
costs, as the ABC uses the National Transmission Network for its terrestrial
broadcasting. The Government provides transmission funding for the NTN
from a separate budget allocation, which is expected to increase during
the simulcast years.
Indeed, the Democrats have information which suggests that the real costs
of digital conversion is likely to be a small proportion of the estimated
$1 billion identified in FACTS submission, and probably half. Estimates
we have received state that the incremental conversion costs will be in
the range of $60 to $ 80 million for all three networks on a five capital
city basis, and the regionals at approximately $100 to $130 million,
making a total of no more than $210 million maximum.
In Australia, the capital costs consist of the main transmitter signals
in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, hung off existing towers with new cables
and antennae arrays. The purchase of digital equipment is already underway,
and has been for some time, under normal studio equipment replacement
cycles. From what the Democrats have been able to ascertain, camera and
edit suites are largely digital already.
This demonstrates that much remains unclear about the real costs to broadcasters
of DTTB conversion, and therefore it requires ongoing investigation. We
do not doubt that digital conversion will be expensive, but if FACTS have
not calculated their costs accurately, it calls into question the whole
basis on which the Government has predicated its digital policy and commensurate
legislation.
New Commercial Players
An essential element of the digital package is the moratorium on new
commercial entrants until 2008. FACTS submitted this is a crucial component
because of the investment commitment required by the existing commercial
players and for the maintenance of the quality and diversity of services
available to consumers. But is a moratorium on new entrants until 2008
logical? Given the potential for new services to emerge in digital technology,
new entrants could add to the diversity of product and services rather
than detract from them. Furthermore, it appears likely that new entrants
would face the same infrastructure costs as their established counterparts
because they would not be granted free spectrum space and would incur
fees, taxes and other liabilities. The advertising industry would welcome
a new market [16].
ASTRA questions the need to rush the decision on the introduction of
DTTB, because there are too many unknowns in policy, legal, technical
and economic terms [17]. The Democrats would
agree with this assessment. ASTRA's suggestion that a full inquiry looking
into these matters be conducted has merit.
The Democrats agree with the Committee that it is essential that the
Parliament should be kept closely informed of the progress of digital
conversion developments but goes further than Recommendation 6 of the
Committee (Chapter 3, p. 30). [18]. The Democrats
recommend that a Senate Select Committee be convened to inquire into all
digital conversion issues, particularly those issues the Committee was
unable to fully investigate, and those which are subject to statutory
review. This committee should be convened immediately and have an ongoing
interest in DTTB, including all reviews undertaken between now and the
final statutory reviews in 2005.
ASTRA further submits that the legislation be amended to
- contain the objectives from the Explanatory Memorandum, particularly
in regard to the prohibitions on multi-channelling and the meaning of
datacasting services.
- ensure that conditional access systems be open to all existing and
future users of the broadcasting services bands which need to interface
and operate with television sets.
- HDTV requirements to be made clear and upfront, not left to the uncertainty
of regulations [19]
The Democrats support this position. We reject the statement in the majority
report that the Explanatory Memorandum seeks to remove any uncertainty
by making clear the intent of the legislation [20].
If the policy intention, the prohibition of services and the definitions
of other services are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum, they should
also be made explicit in the body of the legislation. We would not wish
to see a scenario where the courts will have to decide an issue because
the legislation did not provide a clear enough framework and therefore
operational certainty.
Regional Broadcasters
Regional broadcasters are defined in two groups – multi-station
regional and solus-station regional broadcasters. This makes regional
broadcasters quite different from their metropolitan counterparts, and
worthy of separate consideration.
Regional broadcasters have higher transmission costs per viewer than
metropolitan broadcasters and require more relay stations and more transmission
towers to cover a wider area. This results in higher infrastructure and
operating costs. Most do not have the resources to produce their own programs,
apart from local news and current affairs, and purchase their product
from networks, or from overseas broadcasters. In aggregated markets, licensees
have an affiliation agreement with one of the major networks to provide
most of their programming. Licence fees are lower for regional broadcasters,
reflecting the lower advertising revenues they receive.
When aggregation of markets commenced, it imposed additional costs for
the installation of additional transmission equipment to broadcast throughout
a larger region. Licensees in aggregated market received assistance in
the form of licence fees subsidies, a waiving of national transmission
network fees and sales tax exemptions on purchases of UHF equipment. The
assistance lasted in general, for a six-year period [21].
The regional broadcasters are requesting the same assistance in the transition
to DTTB, with special attention afforded to solus markets. The Communications
Law Centre noted that “we should remain open to the possibility that
the most appropriate and cost-efficient technical way to offer digital
television services to regional and remote Australia…might not be
the same as that for metropolitan Australia” [22].
The majority report recommends that the Government should consider the
granting of special licence rebates over a period of eight years to regional
broadcasters to assist them with some of their digital conversion [23].
The Democrats consider a licence fee subsidy more appropriate than a
full licence fee rebate. In relation to Recommendation 8 of the Committee
(Chapter 5, p. 44), the Democrats agree that regional broadcasters face
differences from their metropolitan counterparts. However, the Democrats
would prefer regional broadcasters to be provided with subsidised access
to NTN facilities.
High Definition Television (HDTV)
The Australian Consumers' Association (ACA) believes mandating the broadcasting
of HDTV is neither desirable nor sustainable. They predict that HDTV will
fail because the equipment will be too expensive and consumers will opt
for increased services rather than enhanced picture quality. For those
who can only afford the set-top boxes, this will certainly be the case,
because analogue televisions will not be able to broadcast programs of
HDTV quality.
The ACA in evidence suggested that the `use it or lose it' provisions
of the Bill might require strengthening.
“And be prepared, because in three years' time the inquiry will
be told `Oh, but we have invested all this money in it. Even if only three
households bought those [HDTV] sets, we need to continue to have that
spectrum'” [24]
Further, the Democrats doubt the regulator's resolve to implement such
a drastic punishment for a breach of spectrum use. A more appropriate
penalty may be monetary, together with the loss of the 7MHz of spectrum
to an amount capable of broadcasting a standard digital television channel.
Australian Content Standards
When announcing the digital conversion package on 24 March 1998, the
Minister stated that “the current stringent local content requirements
which apply to analogue commercial free-to-airs will continue to apply
in the digital environment.” [25]
Ordinarily, the Democrats would applaud the Government's insistence that
free-to-air broadcasters broadcast material which reflects Australian
values and Australian culture. However, the recent High Court decision
in the Project Blue Sky case, disallows the ABA's right to give preference
to the broadcast of Australian programs [26].
This renders the content provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act
meaningless, unless there is a legislative response to the issue.
The majority report states that the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance
(MEAA) endorses the Government's position on Australian content, because
the “Bills contemplate a regulatory framework that would ensure high
levels of Australian content on DTTB, a position the Alliance endorses
[27]”. This quote, however, is not in
context. The MEAA states that the High Court
“calls into question the Government's ability to protect the most
critical plank of the broadcasting system…[because] the current Australian
content standard was unlawful…[and]…makes a mockery of the concept
of Australian content” [28].
The MEAA therefore submits that the offending section of the Broadcasting
Services Act, section 160 (d) be deleted, in order that the integrity
of the content standard is restored. This is essential if the Government's
commitment to Australian content standards is to be realised.
The Committee notes that the Government is awaiting the findings of the
ABA's inquiry into the Hight Court's decision. However, the ABA's powers
in relation to its review of content standards are limited. The ABA cannot
determine if the legislation should be changed, but must create a standard
which complies with the High Court's findings. In this regard, there are
no guarantees that the ABA can continue to give preference to Australian
content standards. The most important aspect of this debate is that Australian
content standards do not fall. This issue is therefore integral to the
Bill.
Datacasting
Datacasting is defined in the Bill by reference to the definition of
a broadcasting service in the Broadcasting Services Act. It is
a service other than a broadcasting service that delivers information
(whether in the form of data, text, speech, images, or in any other form).
The delivery of these services is in the broadcasting services band, and
is a service not of a kind specified in regulations.
While not wanting to limit new technologies or the advent of new services
within a digital broadcasting environment, the Democrats do not believe
it is appropriate to wait for the review in 2001 to determine the adequacy
of the definition of datacasting.
The number of unclear areas in the definitions of both datacasting and
broadcasting might not make the operation of the Bill workable in the
first instance.
Multi-channelling
It is unclear whether the legislation will be adequate to prevent defacto
multi-channelling, or actual multi-channelling, despite assurances that
commercial networks will not be permitted to provide multi-channel services.
The phrase “under regulations the program is treated as incidental
and directly linked to a program that is broadcast simultaneously
by the licensee” is ambiguous. The Explanatory Memorandum states
that the regulations could for example “permit different visual representations
of the same event, filmed within the confines of the event, such as the
ability to view the event from different camera angles” [29].
This may be too broad. The term `event' also implicitly defines a program
type – like live sport – but the actual program may not be live,
may not be a sports program, or even an `event'. A lifestyle program,
for example, might provide an enhanced service in the form of a shopping
guide, or other linked video content. Although not intended by this definition,
in practical terms this may amount to multi-channelling.
The Democrats' Position
The Australian Democrats have serious concerns regarding the policy environment
in which the decisions about DTTB are being made.
The Government's policy framework for the conversion from analogue to
DTTB is based on assumptions derived from analogue broadcasting. The decision
to mandate HDTV and not allow new entrants until 2008 exemplifies this.
The ban on the entry of new broadcasters may have the effect of further
concentrating media power, limiting the diversity of content and the possibility
of the introduction of new and innovative services. This requires further
and ongoing investigation.
Despite the vital importance DTTB has for the broadcasting future, there
has been very little public debate on the issue. It is incumbent upon
the Government to ensure that all consumers are made aware of the importance
of the introduction of DTTB, with the policy objectives being clearly
stated and open to critique. This should occur before the introduction
of legislation, rather than after it through a piecemeal review process
which pads out the legislation through regulation and other subordinate
instruments.
FACTS have argued that its members require 7MHz of spectrum to allow
them to provide HDTV, which they believe, is the type of broadcasting
service which will be attractive to consumers. This claim is dubious at
best. The UK has adopted a multi-channel environment, and it appears likely
that the United States, who have not mandated HDTV, will also allow multi-channelling.
While commercial broadcast licences are conditional on them not providing
multi-channel services, there should be other enforceable penalties for
breaches, following investigations by the ABA. It would pay the Government
to remember that the commercial free-to-air broadcasters are not the custodians
of the spectrum or of broadcasting policy. They, like all other broadcasting
service providers, are users of it, and subject to regulation.
The Democrats support the proposal to allow the national broadcasters
(ABC and SBS) to multi-channel. The Government should make this determination
with some urgency, in order that the national broadcasters can plan their
spectrum use and equipment purchases.
We are also of the opinion that the national broadcasters' statutory
independence may be overridden by the requirements of the Bill firstly,
to have the ABA draft and screen implementation plans and secondly, in
having to broadcast HDTV. For example, under their respective Acts, the
ABC and SBS are able to determine their own content standards, spending
under their budget appropriations, and finally in the types of programs
they produce and broadcast. The same conditions should apply under DTTB
regimes.
The community broadcasting sector should be better recognised by the
Government. The sector requires the same consideration for planning as
the commercial and national broadcasters. The Democrats are concerned
that the community sector appears to be marginalised from this debate,
as the transmission of a community channel is incumbent on a datacaster
[30], rather than being allocated spectrum
space in its own right.
Because digital technology allows for the compression of data, current
single-service providers (single television channels) can become multi-service
providers (multi-channel providers, datacasters, etc). This in itself
is a matter of great public interest, with important consequences for
consumers in terms of how these services are offered, accessed and regulated.
The Democrats are concerned with several aspects of this legislation,
particularly the amount of legislation which is subordinate. The legislation
as it is currently drafted is extremely general, and offers more of an
overall framework for the implementation of the Government's policy decision.
Ongoing obligations and review decisions are to be determined within regulations
and other subordinate instruments. Delegated legislation removes the Parliament's
ability to fully debate issues, or to amend legislation because it can
only be allowed or disallowed. Issues as important as those subject to
statutory review should be contained in legislation.
The Bills circumscribe what can be done with the spectrum, which is itself
an important public resource. It limits the entrance of new players, and
therefore new technological possibilities. It may also impact on notions
of media diversity and plurality, which are issues of concern to all Australians.
The implementation of DTTB requires some crucial safeguards including:
- clear and unambiguous definitions;
- an open access regime;
- application of universal standards and a universal service guarantee;
- a `use it or lose it' approach to the spectrum allocation;
- clear benchmarks for digital conversion, with public reporting by
the regulator, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny prior to implementation
and/or legislative amendment; and
- new entrants given access to the spectrum if the benchmarks are not
met.
The Democrats believe the Government needs to think more carefully about
this legislation before it is passed. Television is not a luxury. It is
an essential service, and therefore crucial that the Parliament pass legislation
reflecting its importance. The Democrats remain to be convinced that the
Government has got it right. Even the Committee remains in doubt on many
of the areas subject to review. These very important issues should not
be left to ministerial discretion.
Senator Lyn Allison
Democrat Senator for Victoria
Senator Vicki Bourne
Democrat Senator for New South Wales
Footnotes
[1] Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny
of Bills. Alert Digest No 6 of 1998. 13 May 1998.
[2] Australian Broadcasting Authority. Digital
Terrestrial Broadcasting in Australia. 1997
[3] Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting
(DTTB) Selection Panel. Digital Television System Recommendation,
media release under Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations
(FACTS) letterhead, 18 June 1998.
[4] Federation of Australian Commercial Television
Stations (FACTS). Submission No. 2, 2a.
[5] Senator Richard Alston. Digital: a personal
message. 24 March 1998, p. 2.
[6] Department of Communications and the Arts.
Digital Q & A. 24 March 1998.
[7] Australian Consumers' Association, evidence
before the Committee, Hansard p. 163.
[8] Australian Broadcasting Authority. Digital
Terrestrial Television Broadcasting in Australia, 1997, p. 98 and
25 respectively.
[9] Members are the metropolitan commercial
stations, regional aggregated markets, and smaller markets consisting
of 1 or 2 commercial stations. There are also 3 remote area commercial
stations, delivered by satellite.
[10] Federation of Commercial Television Stations
(FACTS). Submission No.2, Executive Summary, p. 2.
[11] FACTS, ibid, p. 4.
[12] FACTS, ibid, p. 9
[13] Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA).
ABA Update, No 62, February 1998.
[14] Arthur Anderson Corporate Finance. Evaluation
of the ABC's Digitisation Strategy March 1998.
[15] Budget Papers 1998
[16] Australian Association of National Advertisers.
Digital Broadcasting Position Paper, February 1998, p. 8.
[17] Australian Subscription Television and
Radio Association (ASTRA). Submission No. 14, section 6.
[18] Recommendation 6 states that DoCA and
the ABA provide a report to Parliament by the end of 1999 on the status
reached on any review yet to be completed.
[19] Ibid
[20] Committee report, paragraph 2.8, p. 9.
[21] Bureau of Transport and Communications
Economics. Australian Commercial Television 1986-1995: structure and
performance, Report 93, p. 49.
[22] Communications Law Centre, Submission
No. 10.
[23] Recommendation 7 (Chapter 5, p. 44).
[24] Ms Bun, Australian Consumers' Association,
in evidence, Hansard, p. 170.
[25] Senator Richard Alston. Media Release:
Digital: a new era in television broadcasting, 24 March 1998, p. 4.
[26] Project Blue Sky vs the Australian Broadcasting
Authority [1998] High Court of Australia. 24 April 1998.
[27] Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance.
Submission No. 25, p. 2.
[28] Ibid
[29] Explanatory Memorandum, p. 24.
[30] See clause 56 of proposed Schedule 4 to
the Broadcasting Services Act. Under the statutory review of 2001,
the regulatory arrangements relating to “the digital transmission
of a community television service, free of charge, using spectrum in the
broadcasting services bands allocated for use for the provision of datacasting
services” is to be undertaken. Television Broadcasting Service (Digital
Conversion) Bill, 1998, p. 42.