Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Opening the door to the digital era: regulating Australia's future broadcast and new media industry

By David Flint - posted Monday, 15 January 2001


How should public authorities react to this or other technological developments? One school of thought seems to be that government must not stand in the way of the benefits which will accrue to humanity from significant technological advances. An extreme version of this is that the Internet, for example, is so sacred that the law must not touch it.

While it is impossible to predict the effects of digitalisation, it is appropriate to consider any likely developments, as far as we can see them. As I have said, public authorities quite properly have an agenda and they have ways to intervene to try to realise the public benefits.

Of course, public authorities could always do little or almost nothing. They could enable only the migration of existing broadcasters to digital and do nothing else.

Advertisement

If public authorities do nothing else about the consequences of digitalisation, its effects will be decided by market forces and by the existing regulatory infrastructure. This may not be at all desirable. The market is more likely than not to be dominated by a few players, perhaps domestic and possibly foreign. Will their interests be identical to the public’s?

Apart from leaving the issue to the market, the present raft of laws, regulations and polices may no longer be appropriate.

For example, any cross-media rules or restrictions on foreign investment, if restricted to existing commercial broadcasters only, may be of little public benefit. There is thus a need to review broadcasting regulation in the light of any significant technological development.

It is unlikely that nothing at all will change with digitalisation, streaming and other technological developments. It is possible that multinational firms will seek to gain even more influence. But there will also be scope for smaller domestic and foreign firms in providing niche services.

And larger multilateral firms may not have the influence we expect. While the AOL-Time Warner merger may concentrate in the hands of one corporation a wide range of delivery services, I suspect it will still have much the same content.

It seems that the digital spectrum, even if reserved for high-definition transmissions, will allow new entrants into the market. With cable, satellite and the Internet, spectrum scarcity, a pillar of broadcasting regulation, is being circumvented. But cable, much satellite broadcasting and the streaming of broadcasts through the Internet are not accessible without any noticeable cost to the viewer, unlike free-to-air TV.

Advertisement

In conclusion, I therefore suggest the following:

We shall regularly need to work out what are the likely scenarios resulting from technological change. We shall need to do this against the answers to three important questions.

First, what do we want to achieve, economically, socially and culturally? This will of course involve a reaffirmation of these ethical principles which should continue, notwithstanding the way in which the content is delivered to the public. As to other outcomes, it would be highly desirable that the answers to that enjoy a wide community consensus.

Second, what are the ways in which we as the public authorities of one state or jurisdiction (however defined) can still act unilaterally?

Third, what are the ways in which the public authorities of the region or the world can collaborate to achieve our ends?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

This is an edited version of a paper given to the Broadcast 2001 convention at the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre on 26 February 2001.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint
Related Links
Australian Broadcasting Authority
Department of Communications, Information Technology and Arts
Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy