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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS