Your Free Digital TV Still Being Denied
Why Are You Being Kept In The Dark About Free Digital TV? Australia's Media Monopoly Oligarchs And Their Government Mates Are Making Certain the Status Quo Prevails But At Your Expense As They Clip Coupons In Tax Havens
Since at least about 1992 there has been a war going on between a handful of media owners and the public (you), through your elected representatives, over the future of broadcast and print media ownership and laws. As it turns out however they are in an alliance and together they have successfully denied the public what they own and are entitled to have. Free digital TV! As the Australian media is essentially a deeply entrenched vested interest monopoly most Australian's have been for most purposes unaware of this life and death struggle and its significance and relevance to them. This can be achieved relatively easily because the media status quo controls all the main influential sources of information distribution. This is what they call diversity? The most dominant distribution system is broadcast TV. The broadcast monopoly covers 100 % of the Australian public and it should not come as a surprise they have been using these assets to manipulate public opinion for decades. (Especially on behalf of governments, which is very profitable in more ways than one). And particularly since 1998 when new laws were passed (after being designed by the media monopoly, with the political status quo and bureaucrats, and therefore to maximise protection for them at the publics expense), that would supposedly give all Australians world-class digital television and content. (Government needs the media to promote their "initiatives" in this respect). When this law was produced the broadcast oligarchs made sure they received extra spectrum for channels that they insisted were needed to allow them to convert to digital for the publics benefits. (Not the case.) They also made sure they received this public asset without charge and with very few strings attached. Digital entertainment was supposed to be available in January 2001. This has not happened. But the governments continuing cooperation to support this old media monopoly is blatantly also meant to protect their interests. By continually accommodating the media status quo they can protect themselves from bad publicity and are able to use the narrowly owned media for political purposes as they have done for decades. That is for propaganda. The media oligarchs get a license to print money and the government gets a propaganda tool. But the Australian public has and continues to pay an enormous price for this convenient relationship.The value of these extra channels is estimated to be worth in excess of A$3 billion in an open auction. This is worth much more now but the government has never undertaken a valuation. The media monopoly very likely has but of course will never make it public.( It is not as difficult as they make it out to be, which is really meant to get rid of you. And given government is dominated by lawyers it is curious yet again, and consistently, how logic selectively disappears when needed most).There was no reason then and now for the broadcasters to receive this valuable public asset free of charge. There were then and now spectrum allocation alternatives that should be maximised efficiently and in value through an international auction process. The media monopoly avoids this subject completely and the government continues to waffle about prioritising giving the Australian people the best digital system in the world. Yet again what else are they going to say?Prior to 1998 and for a few years afterwards the print media oligopoly (more like a monopoly though) managed to get a view out into the public through their print media assets (in fact for purposes of manipulating public opinion), that this digital TV law was unfair to them and the Australian public, as was the governments give-away of the free public asset TV channels. They were correct in this respect of course however by about 2000 and after they had wasted hundreds of millions of dollars (shareholders funds) on what they figured were dot.com initiatives, they realised digital TV was as much a threat to them as it was to the TV broadcasters. And Telstra! (While these inferior strategic decisions cost shareholders funds the share price declines provided a good opportunity for the media oligarchs to buy up shares cheap for greater control, thereby making their digital priorities more relevant. Prevent any 4iDTV at all costs! etc.)Analog, which is the current broadcast television system and in the print realm includes physical printing plants, has a limited future, if at all, because digital is so superior in every respect including economically.Broadcast and print owners have now become more aware of these digital technologies and just how much of a threat digital is to them and the value of their assets. As successive state and federal governments (federal government makes the relevant media laws), need their traditional media propaganda machine to insure they remain in power and control, they have consistently insured this broadcast and print monopoly have remained protected from digital. This is basically why the Australian public has been denied free or near free digital technologies and that have been available for years. And being kept less than fully informed about it. (This is also why Howard gives Packer a state funeral. For services to the political status quo!)These analog assets were very valuable, are still valuable but less so if undermined partially or completely by digital. The digital revolution means possible annihilation of most things analog. Therefore these media oligarchs must either own anything digital that threatens them or must at least control it. Your governments have made this consistently possible, but of course this media monopoly is not going to broadcast to the Australian public what they have been denied because a greater awareness would mean a greater demand for technologies the monopoly does not want to deliver. To do so before they can own and control it would simply undermine and potentially destroy their assets. They have realised since about 2000 they are on the verge of being wiped out if they do not combine forces, including government, and gain full ownership and control, if at all possible, and by any means available. All Australians - except the media oligarchs- are paying a very high price for this. This cosy mateship between traditional media owners and government is clearly exposed in other obvious ways.
For example:
Firstly, why did the politicians and bureaucrats give the broadcasters billions of dollars of public assets in the form of TV channel spectrum if they were interested in delivering a state of the art digital system to Australians? Logically, the traditional broadcasters are going to do everything possible to prevent digital TV destroying their monopoly, therefore if they have the public spectrum they are able to do that, and which has been the case. With this public spectrum they have control of when and how DTV unfolds! If any government was interested in delivering digital to the public the last in any line for free spectrum would be the people who want to prevent, stifle, impede or own and control iDTV. The best way to equitably and cost-effectively deliver digital was and still is, is to auction spectrum internationally on a use it or lose it basis combined with a public funded version. Not hand it over to digitals worst enemy with limited conditions that can and have been changed by the analog media monopoly and will be again in the case of their scripted cross media solution.
Secondly, why did government and the broadcasters select a digital broadcast technology combination that is unique to Australia instead of a standard that is available and for a global market? Digital is digital. It is either on or it is off! Unlike analog technology, which is analogs weakness and inefficiency. Clearly it is more proof that the status quo is not interested in the Australian public and it was done to allow the media monopoly more time to gain ownership and control because some of the technology chosen is not available yet among many other things. It can only slow the whole delivery process to the public. Quite convenient! Also manufacturers worldwide are not going to undertake R&D and manufacture for a small and exclusive market.Furthermore, why have they made some law to attempt to prevent any new TV licence's being issued when there is clearly more than enough spectrum available for many digital channels of both high and medium quality but both superior to the existing analog TV quality. Digital provides a superiority that is beyond anything viewers have ever had and experienced. But it is imperative the media monopoly limits and restricts this information from the wider public. With no or limited digital competition the analog oligarchs can set their time frame on cruise speed, which is essentially what they are doing. And what happened to competition and globalisation imperatives? They are increasingly used selectively by the status quo as priorities require.
(Apart from parliament being dominated by lawyers, the ACCC is also where they are building empires and budgets for long-term careers. That should tell you plenty about competition or rather the lack of it. And how Australias legal profession is always in there profiteering off it.)
First in 1998 they avoid valuable auction of public assets in the form of spectrum for TV channels that would have satisfied the content requirements of the media monopoly and attracted other media interests that would have also meant diversity of ownership and opinion. That is what they are claiming they need now as cross -media law. Secondly governments have had a consistent enthusiasm for selling off public assets but it has been consistently avoided in this case simply because they need to protect their old media mates and allies. They are still avoiding any mention of any auction even though the broadcasters have deliberately avoided delivering digital and have not used the free spectrum and the analog spectrum efficiently. (Like air travel deregulation we are now in 2005 back to where we started?) So what about public interest priorities? Fooled again! Both could be auctioned off and would be worth more now in addition to helping to fund iDTV delivery to all Australians sooner or even now as in the case of 4iDTV. They have cooperated to insure this does not happen. This is clearly not in the publics interest although they have the resources and media control to claim otherwise. And research reports have also shown that it is detrimental to the development of digital technologies and the economy. However this is a democracy and laws can be changed. As they have so enthusiastically shown in the case of GST and IR laws and so on.
They have been systematically stifling the introduction and development of iDTV for over a decade now. It is essential to appreciate that as a media monopoly they are able to achieve this by only giving you minimum information, none, or their scripted propaganda. Their assets have been potentially losing some value, so they have more incentive to control what you know about this technology and its potential both for entertainment and economic benefits. Your public broadcasters are aligned with the commercial media monopoly and have already spent over $1.5 billion on imported technologies (adding more to the ICT deficit) that is not being used efficiently. They cannot undermine their public expense empires for fear of also undermining the commercial media monopoly. Hang together or end up hanging alone? The self-preservation choice- at your expense- is clear to them. The status quo resists change but as usual and particularly in this case the wider public and the nation pay the price.
Now however there is another predatory player in this war and as it is dominated by government and bureaucrats they are unequivocally aligned with the media oligarchs. This is Telstra. Because the technological infrastructure that delivers free or paid (or any form of the most efficient ) iDTV to you is also the very same infrastructure that would deliver to you unlimited bandwidth and lower cost better quality digital telephone calls whether voice or data. (This is basically why the Telstra share price can never increase and certainly not to A$7. And also certainly not with Telstra in its current form and as proposed for the total sell-off. Unless the status quo knows about a superior solution but is leaving it as money on the table for them after the total sale. It's always possible, and given the prevailing ethics, and as there are other Telstra solutions that have not been exposed in the public domain at least? Yet!)
So now we have the old broadcasters, print media and telephone businesses all aligned to stifle digital technologies unless and until they can own and control it. And the entrenched advertising buyers as they will also lose their power and profit if you have free digital TV. This is why they have made such a mess of it. It gives them time to achieve these objectives. If they can't they're history. So better to hang together than hanging alone. Despite the fact it is ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive for the nation, anti competitive and probably illegal. As digital leads to all of these old analog technologies to converge into one universal digital infrastructure so these old businesses must converge and if necessary become mates. This is anti competitive but government continues to support it. And the ACCC avoids it. The most valuable solution for the wider public is to demand 4iDTV now, which would also force this media status quo to compete and thereby insure Australians have the best digital technologies can deliver. Or, what the status quo delivers. And 4iDTV is also a more valuable and economically beneficial solution than the cross media ownership proposals once again being developed by the same media oligarchs and promoted to government as the only solution. Government will as history always proves, conform. Unless! This opportunity will not be available again and they must gain total control of all delivery systems ( which is what the politicians and bureaucrats are content to see happen for the obvious reason), or see the value of their old analog assets and business models get increasingly and rapidly undermined. You pay for this inferior "solution".
This limited number of old media assets have been engaged in a shuffling game for at least the past 20 years and if anything they have decreased in quality. But shareholders funds and the Australian public have paid for it, while the media oligarchs keep clocking up the billions or haven't you noticed, and continue to now as the status quo resists change. In fact they have destroyed jobs over this time frame whereas 4iDTV creates jobs, innovation and spin offs that are exportable worldwide. Feeding the wider public as much propaganda as is needed to achieve their objective is not an issue for this cohort. If you disagree then it is probably a good indication of just how efficient their propaganda has been and continues to be. Australian governments have failed to develop an optimal nation building digital broadcast policy that will maximise an unprecedented array of entertainment, business and economic benefits. (What else could you expect?) In fact they have failed and in the process undermined an early unique opportunity for Australia to take a leading position in a technology with assured growth. Existing policy and status is not only anti-competitive but also denies globalisation opportunities. It is not too late however! Once again there is no vision and the media oligarchs are right in there taking advantage of it at every stage. Protecting the status quo but at your expense. In a democracy you have choices. Use them or lose them. The cost of this waste of public assets and lost opportunity to date is probably more than one or two 4iDTV equivalents. Is that an acceptable price for being denied 4iDTV since 1998 and still into the future?
(4iDTV is at the very least a fourth national network but of purely multichannel digital technologies and delivery.)
Why Are You Being Kept In The Dark About Free Digital TV? Australia's Media Monopoly Oligarchs And Their Government Mates Are Making Certain the Status Quo Prevails But At Your Expense As They Clip Coupons In Tax Havens
Since at least about 1992 there has been a war going on between a handful of media owners and the public (you), through your elected representatives, over the future of broadcast and print media ownership and laws. As it turns out however they are in an alliance and together they have successfully denied the public what they own and are entitled to have. Free digital TV! As the Australian media is essentially a deeply entrenched vested interest monopoly most Australian's have been for most purposes unaware of this life and death struggle and its significance and relevance to them. This can be achieved relatively easily because the media status quo controls all the main influential sources of information distribution. This is what they call diversity? The most dominant distribution system is broadcast TV. The broadcast monopoly covers 100 % of the Australian public and it should not come as a surprise they have been using these assets to manipulate public opinion for decades. (Especially on behalf of governments, which is very profitable in more ways than one). And particularly since 1998 when new laws were passed (after being designed by the media monopoly, with the political status quo and bureaucrats, and therefore to maximise protection for them at the publics expense), that would supposedly give all Australians world-class digital television and content. (Government needs the media to promote their "initiatives" in this respect). When this law was produced the broadcast oligarchs made sure they received extra spectrum for channels that they insisted were needed to allow them to convert to digital for the publics benefits. (Not the case.) They also made sure they received this public asset without charge and with very few strings attached. Digital entertainment was supposed to be available in January 2001. This has not happened. But the governments continuing cooperation to support this old media monopoly is blatantly also meant to protect their interests. By continually accommodating the media status quo they can protect themselves from bad publicity and are able to use the narrowly owned media for political purposes as they have done for decades. That is for propaganda. The media oligarchs get a license to print money and the government gets a propaganda tool. But the Australian public has and continues to pay an enormous price for this convenient relationship.The value of these extra channels is estimated to be worth in excess of A$3 billion in an open auction. This is worth much more now but the government has never undertaken a valuation. The media monopoly very likely has but of course will never make it public.( It is not as difficult as they make it out to be, which is really meant to get rid of you. And given government is dominated by lawyers it is curious yet again, and consistently, how logic selectively disappears when needed most).There was no reason then and now for the broadcasters to receive this valuable public asset free of charge. There were then and now spectrum allocation alternatives that should be maximised efficiently and in value through an international auction process. The media monopoly avoids this subject completely and the government continues to waffle about prioritising giving the Australian people the best digital system in the world. Yet again what else are they going to say?Prior to 1998 and for a few years afterwards the print media oligopoly (more like a monopoly though) managed to get a view out into the public through their print media assets (in fact for purposes of manipulating public opinion), that this digital TV law was unfair to them and the Australian public, as was the governments give-away of the free public asset TV channels. They were correct in this respect of course however by about 2000 and after they had wasted hundreds of millions of dollars (shareholders funds) on what they figured were dot.com initiatives, they realised digital TV was as much a threat to them as it was to the TV broadcasters. And Telstra! (While these inferior strategic decisions cost shareholders funds the share price declines provided a good opportunity for the media oligarchs to buy up shares cheap for greater control, thereby making their digital priorities more relevant. Prevent any 4iDTV at all costs! etc.)Analog, which is the current broadcast television system and in the print realm includes physical printing plants, has a limited future, if at all, because digital is so superior in every respect including economically.Broadcast and print owners have now become more aware of these digital technologies and just how much of a threat digital is to them and the value of their assets. As successive state and federal governments (federal government makes the relevant media laws), need their traditional media propaganda machine to insure they remain in power and control, they have consistently insured this broadcast and print monopoly have remained protected from digital. This is basically why the Australian public has been denied free or near free digital technologies and that have been available for years. And being kept less than fully informed about it. (This is also why Howard gives Packer a state funeral. For services to the political status quo!)These analog assets were very valuable, are still valuable but less so if undermined partially or completely by digital. The digital revolution means possible annihilation of most things analog. Therefore these media oligarchs must either own anything digital that threatens them or must at least control it. Your governments have made this consistently possible, but of course this media monopoly is not going to broadcast to the Australian public what they have been denied because a greater awareness would mean a greater demand for technologies the monopoly does not want to deliver. To do so before they can own and control it would simply undermine and potentially destroy their assets. They have realised since about 2000 they are on the verge of being wiped out if they do not combine forces, including government, and gain full ownership and control, if at all possible, and by any means available. All Australians - except the media oligarchs- are paying a very high price for this. This cosy mateship between traditional media owners and government is clearly exposed in other obvious ways.
For example:
Firstly, why did the politicians and bureaucrats give the broadcasters billions of dollars of public assets in the form of TV channel spectrum if they were interested in delivering a state of the art digital system to Australians? Logically, the traditional broadcasters are going to do everything possible to prevent digital TV destroying their monopoly, therefore if they have the public spectrum they are able to do that, and which has been the case. With this public spectrum they have control of when and how DTV unfolds! If any government was interested in delivering digital to the public the last in any line for free spectrum would be the people who want to prevent, stifle, impede or own and control iDTV. The best way to equitably and cost-effectively deliver digital was and still is, is to auction spectrum internationally on a use it or lose it basis combined with a public funded version. Not hand it over to digitals worst enemy with limited conditions that can and have been changed by the analog media monopoly and will be again in the case of their scripted cross media solution.
Secondly, why did government and the broadcasters select a digital broadcast technology combination that is unique to Australia instead of a standard that is available and for a global market? Digital is digital. It is either on or it is off! Unlike analog technology, which is analogs weakness and inefficiency. Clearly it is more proof that the status quo is not interested in the Australian public and it was done to allow the media monopoly more time to gain ownership and control because some of the technology chosen is not available yet among many other things. It can only slow the whole delivery process to the public. Quite convenient! Also manufacturers worldwide are not going to undertake R&D and manufacture for a small and exclusive market.Furthermore, why have they made some law to attempt to prevent any new TV licence's being issued when there is clearly more than enough spectrum available for many digital channels of both high and medium quality but both superior to the existing analog TV quality. Digital provides a superiority that is beyond anything viewers have ever had and experienced. But it is imperative the media monopoly limits and restricts this information from the wider public. With no or limited digital competition the analog oligarchs can set their time frame on cruise speed, which is essentially what they are doing. And what happened to competition and globalisation imperatives? They are increasingly used selectively by the status quo as priorities require.
(Apart from parliament being dominated by lawyers, the ACCC is also where they are building empires and budgets for long-term careers. That should tell you plenty about competition or rather the lack of it. And how Australias legal profession is always in there profiteering off it.)
First in 1998 they avoid valuable auction of public assets in the form of spectrum for TV channels that would have satisfied the content requirements of the media monopoly and attracted other media interests that would have also meant diversity of ownership and opinion. That is what they are claiming they need now as cross -media law. Secondly governments have had a consistent enthusiasm for selling off public assets but it has been consistently avoided in this case simply because they need to protect their old media mates and allies. They are still avoiding any mention of any auction even though the broadcasters have deliberately avoided delivering digital and have not used the free spectrum and the analog spectrum efficiently. (Like air travel deregulation we are now in 2005 back to where we started?) So what about public interest priorities? Fooled again! Both could be auctioned off and would be worth more now in addition to helping to fund iDTV delivery to all Australians sooner or even now as in the case of 4iDTV. They have cooperated to insure this does not happen. This is clearly not in the publics interest although they have the resources and media control to claim otherwise. And research reports have also shown that it is detrimental to the development of digital technologies and the economy. However this is a democracy and laws can be changed. As they have so enthusiastically shown in the case of GST and IR laws and so on.
They have been systematically stifling the introduction and development of iDTV for over a decade now. It is essential to appreciate that as a media monopoly they are able to achieve this by only giving you minimum information, none, or their scripted propaganda. Their assets have been potentially losing some value, so they have more incentive to control what you know about this technology and its potential both for entertainment and economic benefits. Your public broadcasters are aligned with the commercial media monopoly and have already spent over $1.5 billion on imported technologies (adding more to the ICT deficit) that is not being used efficiently. They cannot undermine their public expense empires for fear of also undermining the commercial media monopoly. Hang together or end up hanging alone? The self-preservation choice- at your expense- is clear to them. The status quo resists change but as usual and particularly in this case the wider public and the nation pay the price.
Now however there is another predatory player in this war and as it is dominated by government and bureaucrats they are unequivocally aligned with the media oligarchs. This is Telstra. Because the technological infrastructure that delivers free or paid (or any form of the most efficient ) iDTV to you is also the very same infrastructure that would deliver to you unlimited bandwidth and lower cost better quality digital telephone calls whether voice or data. (This is basically why the Telstra share price can never increase and certainly not to A$7. And also certainly not with Telstra in its current form and as proposed for the total sell-off. Unless the status quo knows about a superior solution but is leaving it as money on the table for them after the total sale. It's always possible, and given the prevailing ethics, and as there are other Telstra solutions that have not been exposed in the public domain at least? Yet!)
So now we have the old broadcasters, print media and telephone businesses all aligned to stifle digital technologies unless and until they can own and control it. And the entrenched advertising buyers as they will also lose their power and profit if you have free digital TV. This is why they have made such a mess of it. It gives them time to achieve these objectives. If they can't they're history. So better to hang together than hanging alone. Despite the fact it is ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive for the nation, anti competitive and probably illegal. As digital leads to all of these old analog technologies to converge into one universal digital infrastructure so these old businesses must converge and if necessary become mates. This is anti competitive but government continues to support it. And the ACCC avoids it. The most valuable solution for the wider public is to demand 4iDTV now, which would also force this media status quo to compete and thereby insure Australians have the best digital technologies can deliver. Or, what the status quo delivers. And 4iDTV is also a more valuable and economically beneficial solution than the cross media ownership proposals once again being developed by the same media oligarchs and promoted to government as the only solution. Government will as history always proves, conform. Unless! This opportunity will not be available again and they must gain total control of all delivery systems ( which is what the politicians and bureaucrats are content to see happen for the obvious reason), or see the value of their old analog assets and business models get increasingly and rapidly undermined. You pay for this inferior "solution".
This limited number of old media assets have been engaged in a shuffling game for at least the past 20 years and if anything they have decreased in quality. But shareholders funds and the Australian public have paid for it, while the media oligarchs keep clocking up the billions or haven't you noticed, and continue to now as the status quo resists change. In fact they have destroyed jobs over this time frame whereas 4iDTV creates jobs, innovation and spin offs that are exportable worldwide. Feeding the wider public as much propaganda as is needed to achieve their objective is not an issue for this cohort. If you disagree then it is probably a good indication of just how efficient their propaganda has been and continues to be. Australian governments have failed to develop an optimal nation building digital broadcast policy that will maximise an unprecedented array of entertainment, business and economic benefits. (What else could you expect?) In fact they have failed and in the process undermined an early unique opportunity for Australia to take a leading position in a technology with assured growth. Existing policy and status is not only anti-competitive but also denies globalisation opportunities. It is not too late however! Once again there is no vision and the media oligarchs are right in there taking advantage of it at every stage. Protecting the status quo but at your expense. In a democracy you have choices. Use them or lose them. The cost of this waste of public assets and lost opportunity to date is probably more than one or two 4iDTV equivalents. Is that an acceptable price for being denied 4iDTV since 1998 and still into the future?
(4iDTV is at the very least a fourth national network but of purely multichannel digital technologies and delivery.)
posted by Rupert Russell | 1:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home