The issue of must-carry channels for wireless TV stations has not only become the most contentious issue in the debate over amending the three broadcasting acts, it has also become an issue in the legislative elections.
Broadcasting issues becoming such a hot political topic is useful for the transformation of the media, and so this is a positive development. However, it would be worrying if industry interests come to dominate the revision of the three laws: — the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), the Cable Television Act (有線電視法) and the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法).
The proposed amendments are aimed at resolving several pressing problems that are key to Taiwan’s broadcasting industry’s entry into the digital era. However, the Cabinet and lawmakers have allowed the amendments to languish in the legislature for more than three years without solving these issues. This has damaged consumers’ rights and the industry’s competitiveness.
The government, which should reflect and represent the public interest, has been unable to handle this issue. If this is not indicative of a rudderless government, then what is?
The reason it has taken more than three years to achieve consensus on amending the three laws is that there are vested interests competing behind the scenes. Those embroiled in this issue include cable TV systems operators, channel operators and terrestrial TV operators. Of course, there is also no shortage of industry consortia.
It is not very strange that there would be rival interest groups in a freely competitive commercial environment, but it would be a breach of social justice if this hurt national progress and the rights of consumers.
The crux of the problem is that although Taiwan has entered the multi-platform era, the cable TV industry remains highly monopolized. Current cable and TV television operators and new market entrants are squabbling over the few sought-after basic channels.
The problem is that these companies just want channels, but do not care about the services they provide audiences.
Terrestrial TV operators claim that they are responsible entities and answer to the public, but consumers have yet to see that these companies make a sufficient effort to contribute to the nation’s broadcast environment.
The digital terrestrial TV channels set up by the main stations were criticized by consumers for the lack of content at an early stage. Cable TV systems operators that claim that the government has never shown any concern for them are not only sitting on huge profits, they provide insufficient feedback in the shape of public services, and some have entered into an alliance to stabilize benefits with other existing operators.
The end result is that Taiwan’s cable TV program content has sunk to new lows. This is unacceptable to the public.
Terrestrial TV operators are demanding that cable TV operators must be told to carry more terrestrial channels. From the consumers’ point of view, the question is what responsibility terrestrial TV operators are willing to bear.
In addition to the ratio of domestically produced high-resolution programs proposed by the National Communications Commission, what other efforts have been made that the public find acceptable?
We also need to ask the cable TV systems operators opposed to having to carry terrestrial TV channels, why — after enjoying so many years of huge benefits — they continue to find excuses for blocking the abolishment of channel bundles, an issue directly related to the consumers’ right of choice, and why they insist on withholding an unreasonable part of the viewer subscription fees from channel operators and block new competitive operators from entering the market?
If the rival sides on the issue of must-carry channels offer no substantive commitment to the public interest, nothing they say will be anything but sugar-coated defense of their own interests.
Must-carry channels are not a necessary part of the three broadcasting laws, nor are they a necessary choice for consumers. If broadcast operators abandon the interests of consumers, then why should the public foot the bill?
At this critical stage, we ask the government to stand up for the public interest and be courageous enough to demand the construction of a healthy, multi-platform competitive broadcasting environment. The government should set out a list of consumer interests and then demand that all the operators involved commit to these. Whoever promises to come up with the goods, gets the contract.
As for the lawmakers, every party should be invited to put forward their own complete broadcasting reform policies for public examination so that consumers can find out if the must-carry channel issue is directed by any consortia or other vested interests.
We must not forget that a proposed amendment to the Public Television Act (公共電視法) and the draft act against media monopolization have also been left languishing for a long time. How is it that those legislators who claim to be concerned about the public interest can only look to the amendment of the three broadcasting laws and ignore all the other broadcasting-related legislation?
Let us use the Jan. 16 legislative elections to make lawmakers show whether they really care about media reform or if they are just mouthpieces for the industry.
Hu Yuan-hui is an associate professor of communications at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Clare Lear
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS