Media on brink of revolution

Rupert Murdoch

Proposed media reforms in Australia herald either a brave new world of dazzling consumer choice or a dangerous erosion of media ownership diversity.

Opinion is divided over exactly what the Government's proposals would mean for the average TV viewer and newspaper reader.

Communications Minister Helen Coonan has put out a discussion paper which envisages the biggest reform of the media industry since the issue was tackled in 1987 by a Labor government.

Two new digital licences will be granted, shaking up the present television landscape in which there are five free-to-air channels - the public broadcasters SBS and the ABC, and three commercial networks, Seven, Nine and Ten.

In return for this challenge to established media operators, the Government proposes to scrap restraints on the cross-media ownership which prevents any company from owning a TV channel and newspaper in the same city.

As well, strict limits on foreign ownership of media outlets would be relaxed, allowing overseas firms to buy into the Australian market.

"There is a very compelling case for change and if the Government does not act, then there is a genuine risk that Australia will become a dinosaur of the analogue age," Senator Coonan says.

Australia, like many developed countries, is about to enter an era of bewildering news and entertainment choice.

It is full of unfamiliar jargon with which ordinary Aussies will have to come to grips - such as snack TV, Blu-ray, HDVD disk formats, Wi-max and live-streaming.

Digital television is already available but only 15 per cent of households have bought it.

As part of its discussion paper the Government says that analogue television will be phased out in the big cities by 2010 and in regional areas and country areas by 2012. Like it or not, the digital revolution is coming.

The industry has welcomed the proposed changes and media stocks rose as investors anticipated a wave of mergers and acquisitions in the A$12 billion ($14 billion) industry.

On the plus side for consumers, there will be much more variety. The two new digital providers, which could begin operation as early as next year, will be able to broadcast 35 more channels.

Some would be made available to SBS and ABC, some to the commercial channels, and others could be used for streaming television content to mobile phones.

The channels are likely to be dominated by so-called niche and snack TV. Niche television includes religious and shopping channels and foreign-language programmes while snack TV would consist of information services such as share prices, weather, music, sport and news.

That's just fine if you favour current affairs or are mad keen on minority interests such as lawn bowls or ballroom dancing.

On the negative side, the conversion to digital will hit consumers in the pocket. They will have to either trade in their old telly for a digital TV, priced at about A$1300, or buy a digital set-top conversion box costing up to A$500.

The advantages of digital television include a much sharper picture, higher quality sound and multi-camera views for some programmes.

THERE are fears that deregulation will concentrate power in the hands of a few media companies. Firms will be able to merge as long as there are a minimum of five media proprietors operating in the state capitals and four in regional centres.

Contrast that with the situation now, where there are a dozen media owners apiece in Sydney and Melbourne. In other words, the size of the media pool could more than halve.

That is unlikely to go down well with ordinary Australians.

A survey in 2003 found that four in five believed media ownership was already too concentrated.

Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd, for instance, already controls more than 70 per cent of the metropolitan newspaper market, including The Australian, Sydney's Daily Telegraph tabloid and the Herald Sun in Melbourne.

It means that a single media company could own a television network, a radio station and a newspaper in the one city, with news and current affairs for all three streams emanating from one newsroom.

It overturns the status quo which has existed since the 1980s, when Treasurer Paul Keating said media moguls must opt between being either "princes of print or queens of the screen".

Stephen Conroy, communications spokesman for the opposition Labor Party, says: "The proposed reforms will ensure that the existing media barons will have greater ownership, greater control over the diversity of opinion in this country. That's not good for democracy and that's not good for diversity of opinion."

For sports-mad Aussies, these are uncertain times. Coonan has flagged the introduction of a "use it or lose it" rule, where a channel which fails to broadcast a sports event to which it holds the rights could forfeit the privilege to a competitor.

The legislation also envisages a review in three years of the anti-siphoning rules that ensure free-to-air networks are given first option to about 1000 screen major sports events.

"There's no indication that rugby internationals or the Ashes will be taken off the anti-siphoning list and allowed to go to subscription channels," says Andrew Kenyon, director of the Centre for Media Law at Melbourne University. "Some of the more obscure events will probably have to be paid for - minor golf and tennis competitions, for instance. But the really big numbers, like the Australian Open or Wimbledon, will be protected and will stay on free-to-air."

The Government hopes to get the legislation passed by the end of the year.

"It's a gradual evolution towards more competition and more platforms for receiving audio-visual content," Kenyon says.

"At this stage it's a cautious approach. Subscription services are likely to increase but there'll still be an awful lot on free-to-air TV."

But what lies beyond 2012 is anyone's guess.