Chapter 2
Regulation and Standards
Obligations on Commercial and National Broadcasters
2.1 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 impose a broad range
of obligations on commercial and national broadcasters in relation to
the introduction of digital services.
2.2 Item 10 of Schedule 2 of the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital
Conversion) Bill 1998 proposes amendments to subclause 7 (1) of Schedule
2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) and will require
that, as a condition of their broadcasting licence, commercial broadcasters
will comply with:
a) Requirements of the commercial television conversion scheme (clause
5 of proposed schedule 4 of the BSA);
b) An implementation plan given by the broadcaster to the ABA in accordance
with the commercial television conversion scheme;
c) Defined simulcasting requirements during the simulcast period;
d) HDTV standards that are applicable to the licensee (clause 34 of proposed
schedule 4 of the BSA);
e) Standards for captioning of television programs for the deaf and hearing
impaired (clause 35 of proposed Schedule 4 of the BSA); and
f) Restrictions on the use of transmitters for the provision of services
in digital mode other than free to air television broadcasting services.
2.3 The Bill also places similar obligations on national broadcasters
in these areas.
2.4 Clauses 7 and 21 of proposed Schedule 4 of the BSA will require that
the television conversion schemes developed by the ABA mus provide for
the surrender by commercial and national broadcasters of one or more transmitter
licences authorising digital transmission if they do not:
a) Commence digital transmission on the dates mentioned at paragraphs
5 (2) (a) or (b) of the proposed schedule in the case of commercial broadcasters,
or paragraphs 17 (2) (a) or (b) of the proposed schedule in the case of
national broadcasters;
b) Continue digital transmission throughout the simulcast period for
the licence area concerned;
c) Contravene HDTV broadcasting requirements. In this case, commercial
and national broadcasters will be allowed to obtain a replacement transmitter
licence that will only allow the transmission in digital mode of a standard
definition television service.
2.5 Clauses 7 and 21 of proposed Schedule 4 of the BSA also require that
commercial and national broadcasters surrender either the transmitter
licence which authorised the transmission of their commercial television
service in analog mode, or the transmitter licence which authorised the
transmission of their commercial television service in digital mode at
the end of the simulcasting period for a licence area.
2.6 Under the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998, commercial and
national broadcasters will be subject to a charge for the transmission
of datacasting services. The intention of this fee regime will be that
there is a level playing field between free-to-air broadcasters providing
datacasting services and datacasters that have paid on a competitive basis
for unused spectrum.
2.7 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
does not change existing provisions of the BSA, under which commercial
broadcasters are subject to standards relating to Australian content.
These provisions apply to broadcasting services generally and do not distinguish
between analog and digital services. These provisions will then apply
to Australian content on digital commercial broadcasting services.
2.8 The majority of the obligations imposed by the Bills were not considered
contentious by those who put in submissions to the Committee. However,
there were some areas of concern relating to the uncertainty created by
the numerous regulations required under the legislation that can only
be made after the Bills become law. The Committee wishes to point out
that the very comprehensive Explanatory Memoranda to the Bills seek to
remove many of the areas of uncertainty by making clear the intent of
the legislation. The Explanatory Memoranda set out clearly the services
for which the free-to-air broadcasters will be permitted to use their
allocated channels, the services for which they will be charged (such
as datacasting) and the services that they are forbidden to provide (such
as multi-channels and subscription services of various kinds).
2.9 In addition to the detailed Explanatory Memoranda, the Television
Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 itself sets out a
long list of objectives for the commercial and national television conversion
schemes. (Clauses 5 and 17 of the proposed Schedule 4 of the BSA).
The Role of the Australian Broadcasting Authority
2.10 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
requires the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to formulate two
legally binding schemes for the conversion, over time, of the transmission
of television broadcasting services from analog to digital mode. One of
the schemes would be formulated to apply to the commercial television
broadcasters and the other would apply to the national broadcasters, the
ABC and SBS.
2.11 According to the ABA, pursuant to the provisions of the Bills, it
would be required to implement each of the two schemes and to monitor
compliance with implementation plans lodged with and approved by the Authority
in the case of commercial television stations. Implementation plans for
the national broadcasters are to be lodged with and approved by the Minister.
[1]
2.12 Under the provisions of the Bill, the ABA will also:
Consider applications from tower owners and operators under the transmitter
access regime for a certificate that access sought to a particular transmissions
tower is not technically feasible and
Participate in Reviews and Working Groups. [2]
2.13 The legislation requires that the schemes formulated by the ABA
for the conversion to digital television transmission for the commercial
and the national broadcasters must be tabled in Parliament. Both schemes
will be subject to Parliamentary disallowance.
2.14 A number of submissions expressed concern about the powers given
to the ABA under the legislation. ASTRA for example, argued that:
The current drafting leaves too much to the ABA's conversion plan. The
conversion plan, for example, is required to be “directed towards
ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives”.
In ASTRA's view, this is too vague: the conversion plan must implement
the policy objectives and not have the clear potential to dilute them.
[3]
2.15 The Committee is not in principle a supporter of legislating mainly
through subordinate legislation. However, it does recognise that in this
instance, the newness of the technological environment in which the television
industry will convert to digital mode demands a degree of flexibility
flexibility that can best be provided through the making (and the repeal)
of regulations rather than through the slower complete parliamentary legislative
process. The Committee also recognises that the Bills provide clear policy
objectives that will direct the ABA in the development of the conversion
schemes.
2.16 As stated earlier, the conversion schemes and the various related
administrative decisions that the ABA might make must be tabled and approved
by the Parliament. If not, they will be disallowed. Nevertheless, the
Committee believes that it is of the utmost importance for the Parliament
to maintain a watching brief on the progress of the Digital Channel Plan
and on the ABA's conversion schemes and other initiatives in this area.
Accordingly, the Committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Department of Communications and
the Arts and the Australian Broadcasting Authority report in a separate
addition to their Annual Reports until the year 2010 on the:
- progression of the conversion to digital television plans
- consultation process in relation to the implementation of those
plans
- development of the regulatory framework and
- progression of the take-up of digital television as appropriate
Spectrum Allocation
2.17 The Committee received a number of submissions that expressed concern
about the `gift' of free spectrum to the free-to-air broadcasters. [4]
The Committee recognises the commercial sensitivity of this issue.
2.18 The Committee believes however that it would be more accurate to
talk in terms of `loan' rather than `gift' since the 7 MHz to be used
for digital transmission will eventually replace the spectrum used for
analog and will need to be returned at the end of the simulcast period.
2.19 Another issue related to the `value' of the spectrum allocated to
the free-to-airs for the conversion to digital. FACTS put forward the
view that the available spectrum would be of limited value during the
simulcast period. It explained that this resulted from the need for what
it called `guard' channels for other uses as long as analog transmission
continues. [5] It argued that after analog services
closed down:
The potential sale value of this spectrum would dwarf any likely proceeds
of a spectrum auction at the start of the digital transition. [6]
2.20 The Committee notes that scarcity of spectrum is not likely to be
a problem. The Secretary of the Department of Communications and the Arts
considered that there might be `more spectrum available…not less'
than the ABA estimate and that 12 to 15 MHz might become available after
the free-to-airs have been allocated an extra 7 MHz each for the
simulcast period. [7]
2.21 The Committee considered carefully the issue of whether the free-to-airs
could have an unfair advantage through the loan of the 7 MHz spectrum
if technological development eventually permitted further compression
so that HDTV could be broadcast using less than the full channel. The
Committee was advised that current reception and transmission equipment
operated on the basis of a 7MHz channel being used by broadcasters. Broadcasters
would face a total replacement of their infrastructure if they were required
to operate a channel with a less than 7MHz bandwidth:
Once a system is set up to use the full channel, it will use the full
channel. To set up a system that uses less than the current full channel
of seven megahertz would require a completely new set of infrastructure.
[8]
2.22 If compression techniques allow broadcasters to use less than 7MHz
for HDTV, they may choose to provide other services with their spare transmission
capacity. Should the free-to-airs wish to use this capacity for the purpose
of datacasting, the Bills provide that they would be charged for it at
a rate that would ensure competitive neutrality with other datacasters.
Additionally, the Bills will prohibit multi-channelling services and specify
HDTV requirements.
2.23 The Committee is satisfied that the obligations placed on the free-to-air
broadcasters in relation to mandatory broadcasting of HDTV and to the
simulcast period, together with the constraints imposed on their ability
to multi-channel and offer subscription-TV type of services as well as
the constraints discussed above all ensure that they are not being given
an unfair advantage under the provisions of this legislation.
Prohibition on New Commercial Television Broadcasting Licences
2.24 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
seeks to amend clause 28 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to
prohibit the provision of new commercial television broadcasting licences
in licence areas where there are currently three commercial licensees
until 31 December 2008. The Bill also requires a statutory review of whether
the legislation to give effect to this prohibition should be amended or
repealed after 31 December 2008. This statutory review is to be undertaken
by 31 December 2005.
2.25 In announcing the Government's policy for the introduction of digital
television broadcasting in Australia, the Minister for Communications,
the Information Economy and the Arts stated that this prohibition was
required as:
Australia has a world class TV system, with a strong local content component
and a highly skilled production sector. This could be threatened if the
existing networks had to battle a new competitor at the same time as paying
huge sums to transfer to digital broadcasting, or if the pay-TV networks
found themselves faced with significantly stronger free-to-air opponents
while still trying to find their feet. [9]
2.26 In addition, the Regulation Impact Statement contained in the Explanatory
Memorandum states that:
The Government considers that restrictions on competition at this stage
in the transition to digital television broadcasting will be required
to achieve its objectives to:
- Allow for a smooth transition from analog to digital television broadcasting
and transmission which avoids disruption to consumers in metropolitan
and regional areas;
- Maximise the use of existing infrastructure;
- Introduce DTTB services within a timetable to ensure that Australian
does not fall significantly behind the rest of the world;
- Maximise viewer choice and diversity of product (recognising the role
of community television and Australian content in this regard) across
free-to-air and subscription services. [10]
2.27 In its submission, FACTS supported the prohibition on new commercial
licences beyond the limit of three commercial licensees per licence area,
arguing that `…the long-standing bi-partisan policy has resulted
in a television service recognised around the world for high quality'.
[11]
2.28 FACTS further stated that:
The argument for withholding new commercial television licences until
2008 is not to “protect commercial television profitability”
as some submitters have claimed. It is to preserve commercial television's
ability to do a range of things that are considered to be in the public
interest, which are not (and cannot) be done by others, and which would
be put at risk if television revenue were significantly fragmented. These
public interest services that commercial television provides are, firstly,
local community news and information and, secondly, a wide range of Australian
produced programs … [12]
2.29 However, a number of submissions criticised the prohibition itself,
or the length of time for which the prohibition would be in place. For
example, News Limited submitted to the Committee that:
News believes the decision to allow the free-to-air operators a 10-year
exclusivity period in which to build their digital television businesses
is anti-competitive and contradicts the Coalition's fundamental policy
approach which purports to support diversity and competition. But if the
Government is determined to retain this protection, then the period during
which no new commercial television licenses is allowed should be kept
to an absolute minimum. [13]
2.30 The Committee notes that in the United States where News Corporation
is a free-to-air broadcaster, it has adopted a somewhat different approach
to the one quoted above. [14]
2.31 The Australian Consumers' Association expressed the view that:
The proposed policy framework entrenches existing broadcasting players
for the coming decade, at a time when consumers in other OECD countries
are beginning to benefit from new entrants and services. [15]
2.32 The Committee notes that currently under section 28 of the BSA,
the prohibition on additional commercial television broadcasting licence
in three-to-a-market areas applies until a date specified by Proclamation.
This date was to not be earlier than the completion of a review by the
Minister required under clause 215 (1) of the BSA. This review was to
be completed by 1 July 1997.
2.33 In February 1997, the then Minister for Communications and the Arts
sought the views of the ABA on:
- the impact of lifting the market restriction on national benefits
and on the achievement of the objects of the BSA; and
- any relevant issues associated with alternative uses of the spectrum.
2.34 The ABA reported to the Minister on 27 March 1997. The Minister
also sought advice from the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics
as well as input from industry and other interested parties.
2.35 In December 1997, the Minister for Communications, the Information
Economy and the Arts announced that this review had found that there was:
… no net social benefit in lifting the current restriction on allocating
more than three commercial analog television licenses in any licence areas.
[16]
2.36 Based on the findings of this review, the Government decided that
it would allow the community broadcasting sector to utilise the existing
sixth television channel until at least the year 2000.
2.37 The Committee considers that there is currently no evidence to suggest
that the lifting of the prohibition on new commercial digital television
licences in three-to-a-market licence areas would have any net social
benefit, given the findings of this review in regard to analog services.
2.38 The Committee also notes that there are few countries in the world
which have more than three commercial free-to-air networks. The ABA noted
in its report to the Minister in 1997 that:
The tendency in most countries is to have not more than three networks
and to have local stations affiliated to them (as regional operators currently
do in Australia). …This suggests that for a number of reasons, such
as programming available for free-to-air services and market factors,
three is an appropriate number for free-to-air commercial television broadcasting
networks, with affiliates in regional areas providing local input. [17]
2.39 The Communications Law Centre also noted that:
It is worth noting that the television business, with five national networks,
has the widest range of substantial Australian players of any media or
telecommunications sector in the country. At the very least, in introducing
DTT[sic], we should avoid compromising the level of diversity already
achieved in the television industry. [18]
2.40 The Bills before the Committee require existing commercial broadcasters
to continue to broadcast their analog service as well as their digital
service for the duration of a simulcast period. This will result in duplicated
transmission costs for existing commercial broadcasters until at least
2008.
2.41 These costs would not apply to a new commercial broadcaster that
was permitted to introduce a digital only commercial television broadcasting
service. This would result in a significant cost advantage to any new
broadcaster in the delivery of digital only services in the timeframe
within which existing broadcasters were required to continue to simulcast.
2.42 The Committee concludes that the prohibition on new commercial broadcasting
licences until 31 December 2008 is appropriate given the additional costs
to existing commercial broadcasters of continuing to provide analog and
digital services throughout this period while maintaining Australian content
and other requirements under the Bills. The Committee further concludes
that the review of this prohibition in 2005 is appropriate given that
this will coincide with a review on whether any extension of the simulcast
period will be required.
Regional Broadcasters
2.43 The Committee also received evidence from regional broadcasters
operating in licence areas where there are less than three commercial
licensees. These broadcasters are concerned that the prohibition on new
commercial television broadcasting licensees does not apply in these areas.
This issue is discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.
The `Phase–in' Period
2.44 In considering the various consumer issues that arise from this
inquiry, the Committee was mindful of the fundamental role played by the
free-to air television stations (both government-funded national and commercial
networks) in Australia. In the words of one witness:
The rationale for that, the reason we are helping the free to air industry,
is we believe that free television, widely available, is actually quite
an important social and cultural thing and we want to preserve that. [19]
2.45 Evidence was put to the Committee that television is the main source
of news and information for 42.7% of Australians and the main source of
entertainment and relaxation, with each Australian viewing on average
3¼ hrs each day. [20] It follows from
this that a decision to introduce television transmission technology that
requires the viewer to purchase a new receiver needs to be phased in gradually
and that transmission in the `old' technology (in this case analog transmission)
needs to be continued for long enough until the customers have had sufficient
opportunity to transfer to the `new' technology.
2.46 Concern was expressed by witnesses to the Committee that the take-up
rate of HDTV might not be as high as anticipated. This resulted in newspaper
reports claiming that `analog would shut down in 2008 when digital took
over'. [21] The Committee wishes to stress
that the legislation does not provide for an automatic analog `shut-down'
in the year 2008.
2.47 The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998
provides (in the case of commercial free-to-air stations) for a simulcast
period (sometimes referred to as a `phase–in' period) of 8 years
or for such longer period as is prescribed in relation to that area (paragraph
5 (2) (c) of proposed Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992 (BSA)).
2.48 The decision as to whether that period should be extended beyond
8 years will be made following a statutory review. This review would include
the consumer take–up rates of digital television (whether through
new sets or set–top boxes) and other issues, such as coverage, recognising
the objective that digital coverage must fully replicate analog coverage
by the end of the simulcasting period. The Bill specifies that that review
must take place before 31 December 2005 (Subclause 57(1) of proposed Schedule
4 to the BSA). While the simulcast period cannot end before 2008, it could
be extended well beyond that date if the need for analog transmissions
remains.
2.49 Further, the ABC and SBS are subject to simulcasting requirements
under clause 32 of the Bill. Subclause 17 (4) of the proposed Schedule
4 to the BSA provides that for each coverage area, the Minister must make
a written determination specifying the duration of the simulcast period
in that area.
Australian Content
2.50 When the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and
the Arts, Senator the Hon Richard Alston, announced the decision of the
government on the introduction of DTTB, he stated that `the current stringent
local content requirements which apply to analog commercial FTAs will
continue to apply in the digital environment'. [22]
Section 122 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) requires
the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to determine an Australian
Content Standard for commercial broadcasting services.
2.51 The Government's position on Australian content was endorsed by
the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance in its submission:
The Bills contemplate a regulatory framework that would ensure high levels
of Australian content on DTTB, a position the Alliance endorses. [23]
John Fairfax Holdings also supported that approach:
…if you tell us that Village Roadshow shows one Australian movie
in four, we can do that, just in the same way as the free to air conventional
televisions stations do that today. [24]
2.52 However, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance supported by
the Screen Producers Association of Australia and the Communications Law
Centre expressed concern in their submissions and in evidence to the Committee
that since the High Court `Project Blue Sky' decision on 28 April 1998,
the Australian Content Standard for free-to-air television is under threat
from overseas (particularly New Zealand) productions.
2.53 The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) is currently conducting
a review of how to proceed to revise the Australian content standard for
film and television production, following the High Court's decision. The
review is to be completed by October 1998 to enable the introduction of
a revised standard on 1 January 1999, well before the introduction
of DTTB. [25] The Committee believes that the
standard, as it applied until the High Court decision, has served Australia
well and that every step should be taken to ensure that it is reinstated
and has the force of law.
2.54 However, the Committee believes that it is not inappropriate, while
awaiting the results of that review to enshrine current Australian content
standards in the legislation that is the subject of its inquiry.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends an amendment to Clauses 5 (2) and 17 (2)
of the proposed Schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act
1992 to include as a policy objective of the legislation, that
Australian content standards currently applicable to analog broadcasting
should also apply to digital broadcasting.
Standards for Digital Transmission
2.55 Clause 36 of proposed new schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992 enables the technical standards for digital transmission
of television broadcasting services to be determined by regulations.
2.56 However, the Committee notes the Government's intention that standard
setting would primarily be a matter for the industry, [26]
and that the Bill provides a `reserve' power for the Minister to make
regulations in the case that the industry cannot agree on a standard.
2.57 The Committee was told that there are two standards currently being
considered by a group of experts from the television broadcasting industry
and from the Department of Communications and the Arts. One is the ATSC
(Advanced Television Systems Committee)—the standard adopted in the
United States; and the other is DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting)—the
standard adopted in Europe. The group expects to make a recommendation
to the Minister by 30 June 1998. [27]
2.58 A number of submissions focussed on the need for standards for digital
free-to-air terrestrial television services to take account of other providers
of services that could be received by consumers using digital reception
equipment.
2.59 ASTRA submitted that:
The determination of a technical standard or set of technical standards
that will encompass carriage by terrestrial, cable, satellite and MDS
should be a policy objective and outcome for the digital environment.
This will be the best outcome for the consumer, broadcasters, datacasters
and provide opportunities for Australian manufacturers. [28]
2.60 In evidence to the Committee, News Limited stated that:
The potential exists, with the wrong choices, for the poor viewer to
be left with insurmountable problems trying to get their array of equipment—the
entertainment system and PC and games console—all working together.
[29]
2.61 FACTS rejected suggestions of a risk that incompatible standards
might be adopted:
The selection of the modulation system for free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters
is critical to making the best business case for the industry. For that
reason, the industry is seeking to make that choice itself.
However, arrangements are also being put in place to ensure the recommendation
for a system is harmonised with other media in a fully open standardisation
process. [30]
2.62 The Communications Law Centre expressed the view that:
It seems to me the model you want is that the industry is the primary
driver …and if it looks like that is not going to occur, then there
is a capacity for government to step in and make standards. I do not think
that is quite as interventionist an outcome as people may suggest.
… if you look at the way the Americans got to their HDTV where there
is still a set of standards but it is the so-called grand alliance HDTV
system—the scale of the politics involved in that standard setting
process is utterly daunting. [31]
2.63 Once a choice has been made between the ATSC and the DVB standards,
the Committee believes that in the setting of other standards, the priority
should be to achieve compatibility and simplicity of approach for the
consumer.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that once a choice has been made between
the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) and the DVB (Digital
Video Broadcasting) standards, the setting of other necessary standards
in relation to the transmission and reception of digital television must
be undertaken with the aim of achieving compatibility of approach for
the consumer.
The Requirement to use Digital Spectrum to Broadcast HDTV
2.64 Clause 34 of proposed schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992 enables regulations to determine standards that require broadcasters
to meet specified goals or targets for HDTV transmission.
2.65 In the Committee's view, HDTV will be an important `driver' for
the take-up by consumers of digital reception equipment. Some witnesses
proposed that broadcasters should be subject to strong penalties if they
did not meet goals and targets set by regulations for HDTV transmissions.
2.66 John Fairfax Holdings Limited submitted a model to the Committee
that proposes, in part, that:
- government give effect to an explicit HDTV objective by allocating
to broadcasters with a commitment to HDTV the minimum spectrum required
for transmission (this is understood to be less than 6MHz with old technology
and more like 4MHz) with new technology.
- this additional allocation is conditional on a commitment to deliver
HDTV services within a realistic time frame, or else the spectrum is
surrendered. [32]
2.67 The Australian Consumers' Association called on government to:
Control the safeguards to make sure that if it is not used it is lost
or sold. [33]
2.68 The Committee believes that the Bills already contain strong control
provisions so that broadcasters will `use it or lose it'. The Bills will
require that broadcasters that contravene the HDTV standards will be required
to surrender their digital transmitter licence that enables them to transmit
their digital services.
2.69 The Committee further notes that, in these circumstances, broadcasters
can be issued with a replacement transmitter licence to enable them to
continue their digital service. Importantly, the Bills require that this
replacement transmitter licence would only enable a broadcaster to `operate
a digital transmitter that will only be sufficient to provide television
programs in standard definition format'. [34]
Conditional Access
2.70 A number of submissions to the Committee expressed concerns that
the Bill does not address issues relating to open systems of conditional
access.
2.71 The Committee noted that conditional access systems:
…relate to the additional layer of encryption coding that is used
to restrict reception of a broadcast to a user or group of users (such
as subscribers to a pay TV or data service). Decryption can be provided
via hardware or software in the reception device, which may incorporate
use of a smart card. [35]
2.72 The major concern raised in evidence to the Committee was that broadcasters
and datacasters might adopt different proprietary conditional access systems
to provide subscription services. This would effectively `lock out' competing
broadcasters and datacasters from the access system and require users
who subscribe to more than one service to purchase more than one set-top
box.
2.73 ASTRA submitted that:
This is a major issue given the audience reach of the terrestrial operators
and the importance of access to ubiquitous DTTB set-top boxes for datacasting
service providers, pay TV providers and interactive service providers.
[36]
The Communications Law Centre (CLC) expressed its view that:
While new delivery technologies offer the capacity for increased service
offering, they also, paradoxically, increase the capacity for further
concentration of control of those services, particularly thorough control
of digital `set-top boxes', condition access systems, subscriber management
systems and major program rights. [37]
2.74 The Committee notes that the Bills amend the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992, which relates to broadcasters, and do not impose any conditions
on the manufacturers of reception equipment. However, there are provisions
in the Bills that will influence the nature of reception equipment, particularly
the technical standards that will be set for broadcasting transmissions.
2.75 The Committee further notes that the Government has introduced an
amendment which requires that, to the extent that technical transmission
standards determined under the Bills relate to conditional access systems
for broadcasting or datacasting services, then those standards must be
`directed towards the objective that, as far as practicable, those systems
should be open to all providers of broadcasting and datacasting services'.
[38]
2.76 The Committee believes that consumers must not be disadvantaged
by being required to purchase additional equipment, and that competition
should not be stifled by proprietary systems. The Department of Communications
and the Arts has advised the Committee that it is consulting with industry
representatives in regard to the operation of the amendment introduced
by the government in the House of Representatives on this matter. [39]
Statutory reviews and other reviews
2.77 The Bill requires the Minister for Communications, the Information
Economy and the Arts to cause to be undertaken various reviews relevant
to digital conversion. Reports of the reviews will have to be tabled in
Parliament. As well, the Government proposes several non-statutory consultative
processes. A list of both statutory and non-statutory reviews as described
by the Department of Communications and the Arts can be found at Appendix
5. A summary of the reviews follows:
Statutory reviews by 1 January 2001
Before 1 January 2001, reviews are to be conducted on:
- restrictions on programming during the simulcast period including:
- 1. the scope of programming that may be broadcast in digital but
not in analog on the grounds of being `incidental and directly linked'
to a program that is simulcast in analog (`enhancement');
- 2. the scope of multi-channelling to be allowed by the national
broadcasters;
- the definition of `datacasting';
- whether Commonwealth laws should be amended to deal with convergence
between broadcasting services and other services;
- whether Commonwealth laws should be amended to deal with retransmission
on subscription television broadcasting systems of digital commercial
television broadcasting transmissions;
- whether Commonwealth laws should be amended to ensure that `underserved'
licence areas (areas with less than three commercial television broadcasting
services) are provided with the same number of commercial television
broadcasting services as metropolitan licence areas;
- regulatory arrangements that should apply to allocation of spectrum
in the broadcasting services bands for datacasting; and
- regulatory arrangements that should apply to digital transmission
of community television services free of charge in spectrum allocated
for datacasting.
Statutory reviews by 1 January 2005
Before 1 January 2005, reviews are to be conducted on:
- whether the moratorium on a fourth commercial television broadcasting
licence should lapse after 31 December 2008;
- whether the simulcast requirements should be amended or repealed;
- whether the prohibitions on digital transmitters being used to provide
subscription television broadcasting services, radio or narrowcasting
services should be amended or repealed;
- the content of any regulations made in connection with the duration
of the simulcast period;
- whether all parts of the broadcasting services bands that are available
for allocations for broadcasting services or datacasting services have
been so identified; and
- whether the parts of the broadcasting services bands that have been
allocated for use for broadcasting services or datacasting services
have been efficiently structured.
Non-statutory formal consultative processes
2.78 The Government plans to establish a high level Consultative Group
to provide broad advice on the transition to digital broadcasting. It
is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Communications and the
Arts and comprises senior representatives from peak bodies representing
the broadcasting, media, online services and electronics industries.
2.79 A Technical Planning Committee will focus more specifically on technical
transmission standards, spectrum planning and compatibility issues. It
will advise the Consultative Group as necessary. Membership has yet to
be determined in detail, but will comprise the Department of Communications
and the Arts, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Australian Communications
Authority, and industry, probably at a more functional level than the
higher level Consultative Group. [40]
Footnotes
[1] Submission No. 15 (Australian Broadcasting
Authority), pp 2-3.
[2] Submission No. 15 (Australian Broadcasting
Authority), pp 2-3.
[3] Submission No. 14 (Australian Subscription
Television and Radio Association), p. 4.
[4] Submission Nos. 13 (Coalition for Australia's
Digital Future), 14 (Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association),
19 (John Fairfax Holdings Limited) and 20 (News Limited)
[5] Submission No. 2 (Federation of Australian
Commercial Television Stations), p. 8.
[6] As above
[7] Transcript of Evidence, p. 191 (Mr Stevens)
[8] Transcript of Evidence, p. 201 (Mr Lyons)
[9] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Digital:
A Personal Message, Media Release, 24 March 1998. Also at
[10] Explanatory Memorandum, Television Broadcasting
Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition)
Bill 1998, p. 16.
[11] Submission No 2 (Federation of Australian
Commercial Television Stations), p. 10.
[12] Submission No 2a (Federation of Australian
Commercial Television Stations), p. 1.
[13] Submission No 20 (News Limited), p. 1.
[14] Transcript of Evidence, pp 172-173 (Mr
Colless)
[15] Submission No 30 (Australian Consumers'
Association), p. 2.
[16] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Community
broadcasting sector wins again, Media Release, 24 December 1997. Also
at .
[17] Australian Broadcasting Authority, The
impact of lifting the three-to-a-market rule on national benefits and
on the achievement of the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act: ABA
report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, 1997, p. 8.
[18] Submission No 10 (Communications Law Centre),
p. 5.
[19] Transcript of Evidence, p. 143 (Mr Given)
[20] Submission No 2 (Federation of Australian
Commercial Television Stations), p. 3.
[21] Harvey, Claire `Digital TV worth $2bn,
The Week-End Australian, 6 June 1998, p.8.
[22] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Digital:
a new era in television broadcasting, Media Release, 24 March
1998, Also at
[23] Submission No. 25 (Media, Entertainment
and Arts Alliance), p. 2.
[24] Transcript of Evidence, p. 156 (Mr Dews)
[25] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Australian
content standard to be revised, Media Release, 9 June 1998, p. 1 Also
at .
[26] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Digital Broadcasting:
Questions and Answers, Media Release, 24 March 1998, p. 10.
[27] Transcript of evidence, p. 22 (Mr Barton
) 27 May 1998.
[28] Submission No 14a (Australian Subscription
Television and Radio Association), p. 4
[29] Transcript of evidence, p. 174 (Dr O'Sulllivan)
[30] Submission No 2a (Federation of Australian
Commercial Television Stations), p. 11
[31] Transcript of evidence, p. 137 (Mr Given)
[32] Submission No 19 (John Fairfax Holdings
Limited), p. 23.
[33] Transcript of evidence, p. 170 (Ms Bun)
[34] Explanatory Memorandum, Television Broadcasting
Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition)
Bill 1998, p. 36
[35] Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum,
Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998, p. 30
[36] Submission No 14 (Australian Subscription
Television and Radio Association), p. 6.
[37] Submission No 10 (Communications Law Centre),
p. 4
[38] Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum,
Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998, p. 30
[39] Letter from Department of Communications
and the Arts to Committee Secretary dated 16 June 1998. (refer Appendix
4 Additional Information)
[40] Department of Communications and the Arts,
Letter to the Committee Secretary, 16 June 1998. (Refer Appendix 5.).