Therefore, if the government were to
allow relevant councils sufficient time to perform a cost/benefit analysis on
the merits of upgrading their self-help facilities, compared with utilising
VAST, self-help conversion may well deliver a net-positive, both in terms of
community benefit and overall cost.
If this were the
practical impact of the Normanton council (and perhaps others) choosing to
upgrade its self-help facility, then it may be appropriate for the government
to allow ‘pooling’ of the satellite subsidy to seed-fund self-help conversion,
or at the very least provide some funding to allay some of the resultant costs.
As a witness
said:
“We believe
that, because it is both more costly and less convenient to receive digital TV
channels
via satellite than via terrestrial reception means, public policy should be
directed at achieving a more appropriate balance between terrestrial and
satellite delivery of digital TV services.”2
2Mr
Barclay, CEO, Broadcast Australia, Senate Inquiry 15 March 2011
Broadcasting
Australia’s response to “Why do you think the government is pushing local
councils and local regions to utilise VAST ? was ”:
“This is pure assumption
on my behalf and therefore you should take it that way. It is hard for me to
understand why, but I suspect it could be a combination, that the department
did not fully understand the number of devices that are in people’s homes and
need to be converted and, hence, the satellite subsidy scheme was only ever aimed
at converting one device1
1Mr McGarrity, Technical Advisor,
Broadcast Australia, Senate Inquiry 15 March 2011
This view was
supported by Ms Nerida O’Loughlin, Deputy Secretary, Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE):
“The
government’s commitment generally for digital is to look at supporting the
conversion of the main television in a household. But then it will be a matter
for people to choose what other televisions in their home they upgrade.”
We urge the
government to further consider allowing flexible application of the SSS funds,
by ‘pooling’ to allow local councils to fund digital upgrades to their existing
self-help transmission (which are otherwise reducing government costs through
the non–take up of VAST).
This practical
solution would allow digital transmission and would alleviate, to a degree, the
cost to be otherwise incurred by local government and residents. Broadcasting
Australia, RAPAD and the LGAQ consider that this would be a sound concept.
Satellite Subsidy
Scheme – broaden it to cover small business
The Government
should consider some subsidy for small businesses to transition to terrestrial
Digital Television in remote Australia.
The VAST Satellite
Subsidy Scheme only applies to private residential households, not to
hospitals, nursing homes, hotels and caravan parks and other businesses which
might provide television services to customers or guests. The government does
not seem to have considered the likely substantial if not prohibitive cost that
may otherwise have to be incurred by small businesses to procure digital
television transmission.
The cost to
these small businesses to install multiple VAST service units is open-ended,
and this is particularly relevant to towns and communities that rely heavily on
tourism as a source of income and activity.
“We are trying to assess
on behalf of individual tourism businesses the likely cost. Some of them who
have looked into it are estimating it is a substantial cost - $10,000, or
$20,000”
(Mr Arnold, Manager, RAPAD,
Senate Inquiry 15 March 2011. These estimates were provided by the Minister to
the Chair of RAPAD (further submission by Broadcasting Australia on 16 March
2011).
Remote commercial TV entities able to transmit
(terrestrially) digital channels, solely in standard-definition
Items 6, 38, 39, 41 & 45 of the Bill
The Bill would authorise (but not require) remote commercial
broadcasters, before the end of relevant switchover, to provide digital
multi-channels, solely via standard-definition. The Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Act 2010 introduced similar
authorisation for commercial broadcasting services operating in smaller
regional markets, such as regional South Australia, Griffith and Broken Hill.
We note that the intention of these provisions is to provide
multi-channel services in standard-definition, rather than high-definition. We
do understand that commercial broadcasters in smaller television markets (such
as regional South Australia, Broken Hill and Griffith), may not be in a
position to make the significant investment which high-definition services
require, at least in the short term. We recognise that the broadcasters could
choose to roll out multi-channels in a two-stage process, providing all initial
services in standard-definition (requiring two transmitters), and subsequently
providing others in high-definition (requiring a third transmitter).
Coalition Senators understand that during this switch-over
process, the commercial broadcasters are cognisant of the interests of all
Australian viewers. However, we are concerned that there is no provision (be
it in this Bill or through an ACMA directive, or otherwise) which might ensure
that commercial broadcasters meet an ongoing high-definition television quota.
Schedule 1 of Bill
Schedule 1 of the Bill concerns re-alignment of the existing
licence areas into new Television Licence Area Plans (TLAPs).
Coalition Senators are concerned at the extensive powers of
the Minister to direct the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
about making or varying a TLAP for a particular area. We note that it is not
intended that every TLAP reflect all the characteristics of each of the
existing licence plans, and are concerned that there is scope for skewing of
resources between respective broadcasters.
The Department testifies that there is ‘no express
prohibition on ACMA allotting broadcasting spectrum in whatever way it sees
fit”. We note with concern that this means ACMA could have the discretionary
power to allocate greater than two channels per TLAP to a more powerful
broadcaster, to the detriment of the lesser players in the market. We consider
this possible, despite Departmental reassurances that the intention ‘is not to
disadvantage any broadcaster’, and for ACMA to assign ‘...channels of equivalent
utility...’ to “...all broadcasters in a particular area...”
(footnote QoN No. 3 in writing to DBCDE)
Schedule 2 of Bill
Areas exempt from digital transmission
requirement – commercial television licensees and National broadcasters
Items 47 and 50 to 52 of the Bill
The Bill proposes to allow a commercial or national
broadcaster to apply to the Minister for exemption from the digital conversion
of a particular analogue transmission facility
Coalition Senators understand
that under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, broadcasters
have no choice but to convert their analogue facilities in a way which provides
for the same (terrestrial) signal coverage.
However, the Bill allows too much scope for a broadcaster to
apply for an exemption from upgrading or installing digital terrestrial
services, especially in remote areas.
The Bill effectively means that any broadcaster can request
exemption from providing digital terrestrial transmission facilities within its
allocated ACMA Conversion Scheme. This allows exemption for a facility within
an approved Implementation Plan, which serves any community (regardless of
the community’s population) which is not serviced now by all relevant local
free-to-air entities through analogue terrestrial transmission facilities each
of those entities operate. This is a rather complex way of saying that the
existence of a community’s analogue self-help facility won’t knock-out a
broadcaster’s claim to be exempted from providing digital terrestrial
transmission facilities to that community. In other words, the existence of a
community’s analogue self-help facility simply doesn’t count.
This scenario undermines the
Government’s reassurances that the Minister of the day will only grant these
exemptions in limited and specific circumstances. If so, then why is the
Government not proposing to legislate those limited and specific circumstances?
Conclusion
Noting that the passage of legislation is necessary to
continue to implement the Government’s digital switch-over policy, Coalition
Senators urge the Government to consider amending the Bill consistent with
concerns we have expressed in these additional comments.
Senator Mary Jo Fisher
Deputy Chair
Senator the Hon Judith Troeth
Senator Simon Birmingham
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents