If I may add another dimension to the points Stewart made, both Foxtel and
Optus Vision mucked up their case by deliberately not carrying all local FTA
channels from the outset, probably haven't anticipated carrying digital FTA
channels and adopted the silly practice of not re-transmitting the analogue
FTA channels 'in the clear' - again, where are the "rights" of the viewers
being respected. Relevant to the latter point is the absence of a 'basic
channel' offering and the inability of non-Pay tv subscribers in a block of
units to share in the benefits of better FTA reception from backbone cabling
that the body-corporate allowed.
And one final point, FTA broadcasters may own the content of their signal
but provide no guarantee to any viewer that the signal will be viewable.
They don't control the behaviour of nature's radio waves nor the
privately-owned viewer antennas and cabling - in other words, they provide
no guarantee over the quality of the picture signal entering the tv set,
whereas Foxtel & Optus Vision do! The latter effectively have a contract
with their customers that the product (tv channels) will be delivered with a
minimum quality of packaging (viewability) whereas the FTA broadcasters
simply launch their signals into the ether from distant masts and protect
the content via copyright but not the packaging (basically the "fire &
forget" syndrome).
Oh, one more point, the FTA broadcasters traditionally (in the US and now
used here) raise the argument that once re-transmission via cable becomes
popular, viewer antennas would be pulled down and thereafter the
broadcasters would be hostage to continued carriage by the pay tv operators.
(A fair argument but can easily be overcome via 'must-carry' regulation.) In
fact, this is exactly what happened in Ballarat when Northgate ceased
operations there! (And then Northgate had the audacity to recently sell
their wares in Geelong and promise the locals that they would still be loved
in the morning!!)
Ross Kelso
Senior Research Fellow
CIRCIT @ RMIT
At 09:29 10/07/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Has it dawned on anyone that ALL television is CABLE delivered.
>
>Whether it comes from an antenna on your roof top, one higher up in a block of
>flats, one down the street with a CATV installation, or one at the cable
head-end.
>
>The reason why the free-to-air don't want Australian cable channels to carry
>their signals -- while in America there is a must-carries rule — legislated
>carriage of these channels — passed through the American Congress only after
>long and vigorous lobbying FOR the rule by the free-to-air broadcasters, is
that:
>
>1. Without a must-carry rule, the Cable network is in competition to the FTA.
>While with the must-carry rule, it amplifies the FTA audience reach.
>
>2. However, this requires legislation which insists that all FTA channels must
>be carried -- it can't be left optional.
>
>3. Since currently we have an optional carriage system, Channel 9 risks having
>Foxtel only carrying Channel 7 — thus boosting the audience and revenues of
>its competition.
>
>4. This places the cable company in the prime position of middle-man (another
>name for ransom seeker) without any additional cost to itself.
>
>5. To amplify this potential for abuse, in Australia we have the same
>companies owning both FTA and cable holdings -- so the potential for abuse of
>the system is a certainty.
>
>6. Therefore both sides in this argument are right. The problem lies with the
>government's complete spinelessness in solving the problem once and for all by
>legislating a 'must carry' rule. The Labor Government was spineless on this
>issue also.
>
>
>
>--
>Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
>See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/techno/columns/fist.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
> http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
>70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
>Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
>
>