While Taiwan’s retail, food and beverage, hypermarket and other traditional industries are rejoicing over the business the government’s consumer voucher scheme will bring, the digital media industry is in dire straits.
Media reports say that First International Telecom may have to give up its WiMAX — Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access — plans because of a shortage of funds. Although still working hard, the economic recession means its prospects do not look too promising. Not long ago, Taiwan Mobile Co also announced it would give up plans to use Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB). Are these two isolated incidents or are they somehow related?
WiMAX is a convenient wireless transmission technology capable of increasing the distance of wireless microwave transmissions by several kilometers. DAB is capable of CD quality sound transmission without interference. It can also simultaneously transmit video and other forms of data and be integrated with the Global Positioning Systems (GPS).
The development possibilities of WiMAX and DAB are extensive, but the tough economic times mean businesses must make cuts. This is a loss for WiMAX and DAB providers, and will have a detrimental effect on the development of Taiwan’s digital media industry. Only time will tell how other Taiwanese WiMAX providers such as Tatung InfoComm will continue to promote their services. It is also worthwhile to keep an eye on WiMAX to see if it will follow in the footsteps of DAB.
The development of DAB in Taiwan passed through three stages: planning, preparation and a final stage characterized by setbacks. It now looks like it may disappear altogether.
In 200l, the government planned 10 groups of radio stations, including most of Taiwan’s most renowned radio stations, to take part in a DAB trial. It was a big project and participants were full of hope.
At the preparatory stage in 2004, the first round of applications for digital broadcasting licenses opened. After the application review in 2005, six companies obtained trial licenses but only one, Tai Yi Digital Broadcasting, went ahead with trial broadcasts. A joint venture established between Taiwan Mobile — which owned 49.7 percent of the shares — E-Ten Information Systems Co, Hit FM and IC FM 97.5, it was the only operator led by telecommunications companies.
After two years of trials, DAB experienced problems, partly because of a lack of promotion, inadequate public knowledge of the technology and high-priced DAB radios that few were willing to purchase. As a result there were too few consumers to keep DAB up and running. In July this year, Taiwan Mobile announced that Tai Yi would be dissolved, and the outlook for other DAB providers is not very bright.
The biggest problem for Taiwan’s DAB industry was a lack of forward-looking policies. Many reports show that lack of promotion is the biggest problem with digital technology in Taiwan.
In a survey on radio broadcasting conducted by the Government Information Office in 2006, 57 percent of businesses agreed and 34 percent strongly agreed that the government lacked effective policies, while 55 percent agreed and 34 percent strongly agreed that the government lacked supporting measures.
Of course, the situations faced by WiMAX and DAB differ quite a bit and the two cannot be lumped together. However, based on the government’s lack of forward-looking policies and supporting measures for the development of DAB, it is difficult not to worry about the future of WiMAX, DTV and other facets of Taiwan’s digital media industry.
Weber Lai is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Applied Media Arts at National Taiwan University of Arts.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS