|
1.1 It is our contention that independent electronic media producers are
a leading indicator of and powerhouse behind the development of new media
production and distribution forms, as they were for computer-based communications
and the film and television industries in the 70's and early 80's, and
that their views are undervalued and consequently overlooked in the development
of policy and legislation for broadcast and new media industries .(2.5)
1.2 Smaller media companies are truly innovative in ways large, mainstream
companies cannot be, are flexible and can best deal with ongoing cultural
and technological change, and so can provide a leading indicator for not
only the broadcasting and media industries, but for sectors as diverse
as the financial, IT, education, leisure, and manufacturing sectors. (2.6)
1.3 We recommend that these smaller media companies be recognised for
their benefits to the Australian community by policy makers and that therefore
support for this vital part of the media and information economy should
be reflected in policy and underpinned by legislation.(2.10)
1.4 To deal with the ongoing and relentless dynamism of new media and
technology that the government institute a regular formal review of relevant
legislation and make allowance in other ways for this dynamism.(2.9.3)
1.5 In our opinion, legislation has entrenched existing large media companies
as the effective sole owners of and gatekeepers to economically viable
distribution platforms, whether those of broadcasting, cable or the newer
internet.(3.6)
1.6 We can predict that the trend of vital small to medium players being
forced out of independent operation of their businesses, or being forced
overseas, will continue and accelerate. This "brain drain" also includes
skilled individuals who are leaving for overseas positions. (3.7)
1.7 The need for a return on investment in new media companies will necessitate
the creation of a "choice" in the provision of different levels of interconnectivity,
resulting in a tiered delivery of services, many of them increasingly
pay services, that will mean some information and entertainment will only
be available to those with the economic means, and will become more expensive
to deliver or will only deliver poor quality services to regional or low
socio-economic demographic regions of suburban Australia.(3.10)
1.8 Anti-competitive behaviour and the operation of overseas companies
outside of Australian tax laws by large media companies and organisations
that effectively "pirate" Australian online consumers and the potential
revenues from the new economy, taking them offshore, are the greatest
threats to Australia's new media and information economy.(4.1)
1.9 Using the Australian book selling industry as an example, it is clear
that the local Australian book selling industry is potentially heading
for collapse as large heavily financed companies such as Amazon online
bookstore take their market. (4.2)
1.10 We recommend that the Commission examine ways in which government
and government legislation can reduce the anti-competitive threat posed
to Australian industry through the loss of customers and revenue to overseas
companies outside of the Australian taxation system.(4.5)
1.11 Of lesser but nonetheless significant importance is local anti-competitive
behaviour by large media companies and organisations, including Telstra,
the ABC, the CMC's and universities, which is compromising the viability
of smaller media players vital to the success of the Australian media
and information economy.(4.6)
1.12 We therefore recommend that provisions of the TPA be tightened to
prevent anti-competitive behaviour by large Australian media and communications
companies and organisations that weakens smaller companies and impedes
their ability to be genuinely competitive in the Australian and international
marketplaces.(4.9)
1.13 We would argue that simple deregulation has negatively impacted both
economically and culturally on the Australian consumer and the broadcasting
and media industries, and is against the principles expressed in the objects
of the BSA itself.(5.1)
1.14 We recommend that regulation be kept "light", be written in plain
English, and be tightened in areas that ensure equity, diversity, advertising
limits, regulated violence and sexual reference, and particularly for
the regulation of gambling using all media. (5.3)
1.15 Convergence brings together the broadcasting, media and communications
industries. It encourages consolidation and reduces diversity. "Reduced
diversity" actually means vital smaller players are threatened with loss
of business and eventual closure in this country. (6.1)
1.16 We recommend that the consolidation occurring in the media industries
must be, as far as possible, reflected in a targeted consolidation of
the Acts currently regulating those industries. This will mean that only
the areas common to these converging industries is commonly regulated,
whilst areas that are wholly or substantially different remain regulated
by Acts that are currently addressing these differences. (6.3)
1.17 We recommend that this common or shared digital language of the broadcasting,
IT, media, communications, and telecommunications sectors be the prerequisite
for an industry to be called a "broadcasting" or "media" or "communications"
company in the first instance, and hence would become the prerequisite
for inclusion within the ambit of a revamped Digital Distribution (Broadcasting
and Datacasting) Act, overseen by a suitable regulatory Authority whose
aims are clearer due to the clarity of definition achieved in this strategy.
(6.5)
1.18 We recommend that broadcasting and related legislation must take
into account this strong tendency to consolidate brought on by convergence,
ideally at the level of tax incentives for small business and disincentives
for consolidation, or failing that, at intervention at the level of direct
government support through research and development funding targeted at
smaller players, and continued support for government organisations fostering
innovative content production and cultural infrastructure. (6.11)
1.19 A policy of technologically neutral legislation could ameliorate
distortions caused by inappropriate political intervention in determining
policy and legislation that allows anti- competitive and inefficient industrial
practices to occur among media players. (7.2)
1.20 We would recommend that all forms of non technologically neutral
legislation be identified and changed to reflect economic and cultural
outcomes, not technological outcomes. (7.5)
1.21 We are concerned that new media and particularly the internet are
being used as the reason for a relaxation of media controls. This is because
simple access to the internet is not sufficient to engage in genuine and
reasonable competition with larger, stronger companies operating on the
internet. (8.3)
1.22 To achieve a healthy media and information economy we recommend:
1) that legislation ensure access for new and smaller independent media
companies and relevant non-profit media organisations to all domains of
media distribution through the reservation of a limited number of FTA
and cable channels and/or bandwidth (see Tier Zero in Appendices); and
2) that legislation ensure continued support for production funding bodies
that assist new and smaller independent media companies and relevant non-profit
media organisations because of the significant cultural and economic benefits
they afford the Australian community. (8.7)
1.23 We also recommend that the idea of a "communications commons" in
all domains of the new media be enshrined in the objectives of the Act
(see Tier Zero in Appendices). (8.8)
1.24 For FTA services we recommend that the national Sixth Channel be
used for distributing the program material of members of the CBAA, and
that commercial interests be prevented from accessing this channel. This
will ensure diversity in the domain of FTA broadcasting. (8.9)
1.25 For cable we recommend that a multi-tiered system of access, similar
to that operating in the US, be mandated on all cable and other media
distribution systems. (8.11)
1.26 For the internet we recommend that a small percentage of bandwidth
be set aside for community, cultural and educational non-profit (CCEN)
use. (8.12)
|