|
8.1 For our company "new media" can be defined as "information, education
and entertainment media digitally generated, manipulated, stored, transmitted
or distributed to the public".
8.2 This means that "new" media is not a subset of the "old" media, but
rather, new media has absorbed the old media almost entirely, with the
only exception being the paper-based and analogue video or film distribution
of media. The remaining not-yet-fully-digital media of paper, film and
video are undergoing rapid digitalisation, potentially leaving only some
paper-based distribution, and some users of older media, in the non-digital
domain in 5 years time. As such we have suggested changes to the relevant
Acts to cover this new conceptualisation of media and the changed circumstances
of the broadcasting, media and communications industries.
8.3 We are concerned that new media and particularly the internet are
being used as the reason for a relaxation of media controls. While we
would agree that ownership - provided content regulation remains - is
not an issue, in our opinion controls over the maximum "reach" or audience
for one related company, that is cross-media regulation, must be strengthened.
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.
8.4 This is because the internet is analogous to the television industry
model only in terms of the competitive advantage that large companies
have over smaller ones as regards marketing, equipment and finance raising.
As such, the internet cannot be truly considered a new media model in
this case as these older "laws" of the broadcasting and media market also
hold for the new market of the internet justifying government intervention
and regulation to achieve genuine competition between large and small
companies.
8.5 Therefore, just as new independent broadcast players are excluded
from access to cable delivery platforms because of the artificially-raised
cost of access or a falsely induced "scarcity" of channels, so are new
independent media players denied equitable access to an economically viable
distribution platform on the internet, hampered by lack of financial backing
and marketing strength.
8.6 A healthy media and information economy requires many players, large
and small, competing in a fair and reasonable manner to best deliver the
benefits such an economy can offer and we feel that only appropriate regulation
can protect this diversity against market failure.
8.7 To achieve a healthy media and information economy we recommend:
8.7.1 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
8.7.2 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.
8.8 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. This
is the best and most efficient way to ensure access and equity in all
domains of media. Such a strategy would provide media domains and accessible
distribution systems complementary to those provided by large-scale commercial
enterprises, and would further benefit those larger companies with an
output of skilled producers, innovative programming, and a media and technology
literate audience comfortable with new technologies, thereby growing the
potential market for media services. This mandated space in all domains
of communications would include FTA, cable, the internet and any new future
media or delivery system (see Tier Zeroin Appendices).
8.9 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.
8.10 However, given the problems experienced to date by community FTA
stations, we would recommend that only formally accredited members of
the CBAA who conform to strict CBAA non-profit guidelines be allowed to
hold licenses.
8.11 For cable, we recommend, as we have to the Duopoly, Telecommunications
and related Inquiries, that a multi-tiered system of access, similar to
that operating in the US, be mandated on all cable and other media distribution
systems in the form of:
a) a Basic Tier delivered free ("Tier Zero") carrying non-profit independent
community and education channels, parliamentary broadcasting, a program
guide, "samples" of pay programming to attract customers to pay services,
and, ideally, retransmitted FTA channels;
b) a Premium Tier delivering pay services and carrying program material
currently available;
c) additional Premium Tiers carrying pay-per-view and other similar pay
programs of a high-value and high-cost nature.
8.12 For the internet, and particularly because the changing nature of
internet delivery will not deliver services to all Australians if left
to "market forces", we recommend that a small percentage of bandwidth
be set aside for community, cultural and educational non-profit (CCEN)
use. The government's recent intervention to ensure supply of a minimum
necessary bandwidth to regional Australia is similar to this strategy
and is to be commended.
8.13 However, simply ensuring ISDN or similar connection to all Australians
does not legislatively underpin the regulation of likely future cost increases
that may see this service increase significantly in cost in the next few
years, effectively denying access to the internet to many Australians.
Telstra is notorious for such cost increases but it is likely that competing
services will follow the same basic pattern, particularly for service
supply in regional areas.
8.14 To ensure that regional Australia and socio-economically disadvantaged
groups have access to the same quality of service that urban Australia
enjoys regardless of the state of the economy or Australian industry,
we recommend that this access be enshrined in legislation, ideally as
part of a legislatively-mandated "communications common" or public lifeline
in all forms of media. For further background on the idea of the communications
common see Tier Zero in the Appendices.
|