Guest Blogger David Beatson continues to uncover the public broadcasting failure of Digital Switchover
Exterminate Public Broadcasting! Exterminate Public Broadcasting!
Broadcasting Minister Craig Foss turned off more than analogue television with his digital switchover last weekend. He also turned off non-commercial public service television.
In our new digital world, no spectrum space on the public’s airwaves is reserved for the development of free-to-air non-commercial TV public service broadcasting. Existing non-commercial TV broadcasting licences are to be terminated. From now on, commercial channel operators are expected to purchase access to the airwaves and transmission services from existing commercial licence holders at current commercial rates.
Only three of the eight channels that operated on non-commercial analogue broadcasting licences before the switchover have been able to purchase a place on the Freeview digital television platform from a commercial licence holder. Three have been permitted to operate their own low-power digital transmitters within the Freeview coverage area. One is still operating on its old analogue transmitter outside the Freeview coverage area. And one – the largest and oldest non-commercial channel in the country, Triangle Television – survives behind the paywall on Sky, and is still looking for a way to reach Auckland region free-to-air viewers.
That is the outcome of the digital switchover policy, revealed in series of cabinet papers, ministry documents, and ministerial letters obtained through Official Information Act requests by the Public Media Project over the past four years.
Here’s Communications and Information Technology Minister Amy Adams on the use of spectrum released by the digital switchover, in a letter dated 30 July 2013:
“I note that the decisions about the amount of spectrum to be freed up through the digital switch-over process were made in 2009 and published at that time. These decisions did not include any specific reservation for future public service and/or non commercial television.”
Here’s what a Ministry for Cultural Affairs briefing to Broadcasting Minister Craig Foss, dated 16 August 2012, has to say about the termination of non-commercial regional TV broadcasting licences at the digital switchover:
“Commercial analogue licensees have paid resource charges for their licences and they have had the option of converting their analogue licences to digital licences at or before DSO. Non-commercial licensees did not have this option as most were expected to take up regional slots on commercial licences held by network broadcasters or transmission companies.”
Asked to explain the different treatment given to the commercial and non-commercial licence holders, a Ministry official told me on 11 October 2013:
“Non-commercial licensees were not given the same option because it would have been an inefficient use of scarce digital spectrum to automatically grant single channel operators a licence capable of delivering multiple channels. There was also the issue of foregone revenue, given that those commercial broadcasters who did exercise the right to convert would be paying a resource charge for the spectrum rights, while non-commercial broadcasters would presumably be not paying a resource charge. “
The logic of this explanation is flawed. Commercial and non-commercial TV broadcasters are both single channel operators. Both make inefficient use of a digital licence capable of delivering multiple channels, but a different approach to spectrum management could address that. The major difference between them is that non-commercial licence holders are required to deliver non-commercial, public service local content and services under the terms of their licences – and commercial licence holders are not. That is why the non-commercial licensees were given relief from paying resource charges imposed on commercial licence holders. Both have been paying their dues – in different ways.
The termination of non-commercial licences creates an unacknowledged problem for the government. From now on, it will have no licence mechanism to require the delivery of the public service broadcasting outputs specified in the Regional and Community Broadcasting Policy Framework that it endorsed in September 2009. This little-known policy promised to broaden the free-to-air television brief beyond the narrow focus of the commercial network broadcasters and increase access to programme content and services they are not providing. After the digital switchover, it is a policy that ccchas no legs.
The digital switchover has delivered dominance of the free-to-air television market into the hands of the commercially-focused networks and the commercially-driven state-owned transmission enterprise, Kordia. Commercially-dominated digital free-to-air television is not delivering on its promise of more choice and diversity in our viewing. It is simply delivering much more of the same. Repeater channels TV One +1 and TV2+1 have replaced the non-commercial channels TVNZ 6 (children & family viewing) and TVNZ 7 (news, current affairs, and documentaries), and join TV3+1. On top of that, we now have three new shopping channels – to supplement the 34 hours of infomercials and home shopping programmes that are broadcast each weekday on the TVNZ, MediaWorks, and Prime channels. More of the same – but even more commercial.
The digital switchover has created a marginalized majority: senior citizens, ethnic and cultural minorities, special needs groups, special interest groups, information and education seekers, those who wish to know more about their own regions and communities, those who hope to see television that promotes civic engagement and reflects the full diversity of our creative and culture interests, those who can’t afford pay-to-view television or on-line, on-demand video – anyone who doesn’t sit in the 19-49 year old active consumer demographic prized by advertisers.
Don’t think NZ On Air can bring some new balance back into free-to-air TV broadcasting. On current policy settings, the bulk of NZ On Air’s long-frozen funding is devoted to supporting local content on the commercial free-to-air nationwide networks because of their superior audience reach. The harsh reality is that NZ On Air has a relatively small impact on the networks’ output: last year, it supported about 12.6 percent of the first-run local content screened on the six networks.
There is one faint glimmer of light on the horizon. Sky has just relinquished its rights to convert four nationwide sets of analogue licence to digital use. That’s enough spectrum to sustain between 32 and 40 new channels. Some other commercial rights holders may follow Sky’s lead.
Currently, the government has made no decisions about the allocation of any surplus capacity left after it meets its obligations to existing rights holders. It could be swept up and sold for non-broadcasting use by telecommunications and new mobile digital service providers. Or the government could use it to give its own Regional and Community Broadcasting Policy Framework some new legs.
If the marginalised get organised, maybe the spare capacity could be used to deliver what they seek from free-to-air television: more “local” local content, more choice, more innovation, civic engagement and inter-activity. Maybe, we could see new forms of free-to-air television that reflect the vision enshrined in our own New Zealand Bill of Rights.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
Declaration of interest: David Beatson is the convenor of the Public Media Project and a former chairman of NZ On Air.
“…maybe the spare capacity could be used to deliver what they seek from free-to-air television: more “local” local content …”
Yeah right. Getting rid of local is the mantra. The unitary authority approach seems to be the cretinous answer to everything.
Commercial free, free to air television is anathema to the Nats and Neo-Libs!
New Zealand is looking less and less like a country I want to return to!
Both National and Labour don’t come out of this smelling of roses – just depending on how far back we wish to go.
What is of paramount importance however is where we go from here! The politics is also one thing – the incompetence of both Kordia and MCH quite another – as is the Commerce Commission which allowed what is now (and what was always going to be) the monopoly position of SKY TV [as I said – depends how far back we want to go – but BIG BAD decision in allowing Sky takeover of Prime].
What I’d like to see is a policy that actually has some balls (pardon the expression), and not one driven by the aspirations of politicians (such as Clare Curran – well intentioned, but fucking useLESS)
We no longer have TVNZ 6 or TVNZ 7
We DO have Kidzone24, and we DO have Heartland (JUST FOR A START) sitting on a platform for which various tickets get clipped.
We DO have adequate bandwidth (at least on satellite) for which an effective Public Service Broadcast system could be built, BUT for the commercial imperative, various egos, a culture that resides within an organisation that could reasonably be expected to represent a ‘public’ – EVEN a ‘texpayer’ – i.e. TVNZ. One that really never ever placed its ‘public’ (its audience) over and above its commercial imperative. Excuses galore will abound – not the least of which will be all that kaka about having to make a return to gubbamint.
All gone! PASSED! Used up! Spent Jet Trash!
We have a predominant player (Sky – effectively a COMMERCIAL entity) that’s been able to drive up content players, leaving ‘compettors’ [lol] struggling – AND one that’s effectively propped up/subsidised/made respectable by a system.
Sorry maties – NOT REALLY ON!
– Occupying bandwidth unused
– Rebroadcasting unencrypted content off-satellite in encrypted format and clipping the ticket on the way
– Getting into sneaky deals with TVNZ: just as an aside ….
KIDZONE24/Heartland: justified on the basis that IP is held by the various production companies …… TRUE! BUT! BUT! BUT IP that would NEVER EVER have been possible had not a broadcast agreement (and a flow of funds) been reached with a public service broadcaster in the first place.
– I could go on ad infinitum
I have grand hopes for a Fa’A’Foi, though I’m not really that sure.
I’m also well aware of TVNZ’s culture – which is one of protecting a few of its Snr Mgmnt – some of whom have risen to fame on the basis of their cock sucking, even their on-air populairty, or even their ability to schmoose and shhhhmultz relatively conservative academic researchers.
There is/are one or two relatively simple solutions to this predicament – PLEASE let’s not try and complicate matters more than they already are!!!
They simply require a political will which shows not only a commitment to PSB, but also the LOCAL, and the representative.
I won’t hold my breath – other than to say that there 2 or 3 simple steps that could kill a monopoly, START to drive down content costs, begin to remedy the situation of the digitally divided, resurrect “FREEVIEW” (such as it is – and such as it’s an entity a Natzi gubbamint would always want to kill off), AND ensure we at LEAST start to resurrect the idea of PSB.
IS Labour, and/or the Greens going to step up to the plate?
Are you (David Beatson, Messrs Dunleavy, Mossman, Bradley, probably a cast of thousands of production house interests, BBC Worldwise, Natgeo, (all those proponents [and now probably owners] of a former Nat HistUnit that never gets seen in its own country, …..etc., …etc., ……. the list id fucking endless …….
So far -I’m thinking maybe not! EVEN THOUGH there’s a solution that’s (if not economically viable) – it’s at least morally so.
What price demockracy aye?
…. next
The revolution will not be televised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8
But it will be digitised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=998OytRz4IA#t=34
The sooner Citizen A is web cast the better:
http://www.facebook.com/brent.partner.5
All discussion of television of late seems to have missed one fundamental reality: digital convergence. The audio-visual programming we are used to watching via analogue radio waves is now being delivered more and more via internet, whether through formal channels like On Demand and NetFlix/ QuickFlix, or informal ones like BitTorrent, digital storage lockers, or streaming sites. All of the purported benefits of free-to-air television programming – both in audio-visual and text-photo form – are now available on the internet, mainly because of the low cost of digital publishing and distribution (at least compared to the cost of running a print magazine or tv station).
What kind of radical policy would ensure the public have easy access to all the public interest content on the net? How about free-to-air wireless internet covering the whole country? Wouldn’t that be as forward-looking as establishing free-to-air television coverage across the whole country was in its time?
There seems to be some assumption that everyone is online 24/7 and only uses the online medium to receive content. That’s far from the truth. While I don’t have the exact numbers, I can tell you that a very large portion of the elderly (and even the over-35s) do not actively use the internet and rely purely on television and radio. Really, it’s only those under 30(ish) who use the online medium to receive all their information, so it misses out on a very large chunk of the population.
In addition to that, anything online will be mixed in with content from all over the world. It’s very difficult to find local content, unless you know exactly where to look for it. Often, people find out about this content through the traditional mediums (radio, TV, newspapers, etc). I personally would never have found this website if it wasn’t for radio, and I’m sure many of the rest of you originally found out through one of the traditional mediums.
Then the last problem is to do with creating content in the first place. Nobody is going to want to spend tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars creating a program when it’s likely to be lost amongst the millions (if not billions) of others available online. If something is broadcast through one of the TV channels, then there’s only a handful of other options people have if they intend to be watching TV at the time. Thus, something which is really good is going to be easily noticed.
So, all-in-all, I feel that the online medium is a complement to the traditional mediums, not a replacement. We’re still a long way off people completely migrating to the internet for content (if it ever happens, which I’m not sure it ever will). In the meantime, we desperately need non-commercial, public-service, local broadcasting for Television…
Yes, WE are ALL just a COMMODITY also, that is to this government, their backers and the already corporate dominated “mainstream media” in New Zealand.
Commoditisation and commercialisation is happening in all areas of society and individual persons’ lives, and it is WANTED!
They do not want to offer anything that does not in some ways lead to PROFIT, to returns, to MONETARY GAINS, for those that sell services and products.
Indeed, the ones in and behind this Nat-ACT government want us all to simply SHUT UP, stop raising questions, stop asking for information, stop sharing information that may hamper the agenda of total commercialisation of everything.
Public broadcasting is stuff out of “fairyland” to them, stuff that does not generate the profits they want, and hence they have run it down and are phasing it out.
Also soon more pay-walls will become the standard for print and other publications, and all those still enjoying some “free” blogging here, beware, the day will come, where the internet will be as commercialised, regulated to favour commercialisation and anything but “free” to us users. They are planning this while I write this and while you will read this.
This goes to the core of democracy and free speech. We already have public spaces regulated, so some risk breaching bylaws if they do not “protest” or share information within certain “norms”.
Freedom of expression and information sharing have already become a fringe activity, as the majority do not participate, do not have easy access to it, and this will get worse.
It is nothing but an attack to democracy and freedom and social, public participation what happened in the early hours of 01 Dec. 2013.
The people better take note and prepare, and take action, to reclaim their freedom, that is if enough bother to do this!
What happens when social conditioning becomes so boring nobody tunes in?
Then there are those who can’t afford the satellite dish and freeview box.
With the crap that’s currently on, they’re probably better of without it…
Keep up the good fight David. Tim, I tend to agree that Labour’s intentions re PSB are limited at best, and uninspiring. Curran seems clueless, and Chris Fafoi is unconvincing. Maybe TV as a medium is dying along with letters, quality journalism, Dumocruptcy, privacy, civil liberties, etc. Maybe it’s all user pays. Where is the political will for the common wealth for all New Zealanders? Corporate rulz NZ now. The Government is a thin veneer for Big Business.
No TV for 4 days now. I’m starting to feel energized already. Just try it for a week, no TV for one little week. You might just find it alters your life drastically and beneficially. Surely the hypnotic power of the box in the corner is not so strong that you can’t go without for one little week? Can you? Dare ya…
Comments are closed.