OPINION: Is government policy towards datacasting in Australia preventing new opportunities from being realised?
In response to the federal government's review of the current datacasting provisions in Australia and a call for comments from interested parties, AIMIA has just completed a submission on behalf of the digital content industry.
Not surprisingly, our focus in the submission was on the need for government to create a regulatory and commercial environment that supports the production and distribution of digital content.
The Review Issues Paper calls for a review of current datacasting rules to ensure they provide "maximum opportunity for new and innovative services".
But for the digital content industry to come up with new and innovative services, investors need to be assured that projects and programs will have at least the same chance of successful commercial production and distribution as those produced for traditional broadcasting.
Under the current provisions--which the government does not wish to change--this is just not possible. Restrictions on the "new" datacasting content and services mean they cannot compete with the free-to-air broadcasters (FTAs).
Unless the protection of the FTAs is modified so that datacasters can offer a broad range of material to attract a critical mass of users prepared to pay for their services, there is simply no business case to be made.
Let's face it: can you see any member of the digital content industry--no matter how well prepared and how well presented--pitching to a VC for funds to assist with provision over the Internet of parliamentary broadcasts? Or text? Or still visual images? Not likely.
There are good economic and public policy arguments for changing the current regime and rethinking the protection of the FTAs at the expense of the new datacasting industries.
Penetration of television in Australia has reached saturation point (97 percent) while take-up of the Internet is still experiencing positive growth.
So it seems extremely counterproductive to protect the static television/broadcasting industry where new jobs and new skills are less likely to be generated, while at the same time restricting the digital content industry which has the potential to create new jobs, foster new skills, and encourage the sort of innovation that is essential to the development of a creative economy.
Surely it would be better to drop the genre and other restrictions on datacasting and open up the digital spectrum and the whole content industry in the national--and not particular sectional--interest?
Similarly, it seems short-sighted to undermine an industry where Australia has the potential to compete globally. We have a track record in this country of producing innovative and internationally successful content and we have the expertise and know-how to develop new technologies to deliver that content.
To deliberately decide at a policy level not to nurture and take advantage of these is almost inexplicable.
Another policy issue centres on what is often referred to as the "digital divide". If government is really concerned about this, datacasting through television set-top boxes could deliver the Internet to a majority of Australian homes--including regional areas--where Internet access is still difficult.
With just a little help--say a subsidy on set-top boxes--97 percent of Australian homes could have government services available online along with a range of other programs and services for which a business case could reasonably be argued.
With an expanded market, it may well be worth investing in the provision of educational programs and services on line. Certainly in the UK, pay-per-use games associated with sporting events have proved a money maker and there are innumerable opportunities to provide commercial services in other areas of popular culture, alternative health, real estate, travel, and tourism.
Rather than preserving the status quo and requiring new services and service providers to fit into the existing framework, government should be prepared to look at the overall needs of the creative industries where the exploitation of intellectual property increasingly equates with economic value.
This new way of thinking inevitably involves opening up the spectrum to any service providers who will increase access to services and programs and stimulate the growth of the content industries in particular-and the creative economy as a whole.
Lynne Spender is Executive Director of the Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association (AIMIA)--a professional association for creators and developers of digital content. AIMIA can be contacted on 02 9252 4938 or at director@aimia.com.au.
Govt New Media Policy Directly Opposes Its' Own Competition Policy:
Open competition under the Coalition ?
Much trumpeted, but forget it if involve Media !
Yes, we have new media - but only if its owned by Rupert or Kerr.
Access for new media ? Well just trying to view any sports action from the Winter Olympics or the Aust Grand Prix on the net - instead, one is forced to accept delayed 'virtual' text updates in 2001, in the same manner that radio listeners had to listen to virtual cricket Test descriptions thru telegrams read on air, when the Don was batting in the Thirties - and we don't even get sound effects !
Freedom of expression in Australia and a fair go ?
Well, only if your a billionaire with a TV network.
Come on - TV never did anything for the Net, and is just a fat old medium that's doing its' best to throttle the new upstart, before low-cost broadband eventually opens up the competition.
Time to scrap our cross-media laws, at least concerning the Net. Fairfax and the ABC could present very reasonable Net broadcasting, if they were allowed a fair go.
That's why I switched-off the TV during the Grand Prix and relied on the Net instead - or rather, tried to.
No doubt Goebells would have loved our media laws !