The National Communications Commission (NCC) held the first public hearing in the second round of digital terrestrial TV licensing on Wednesday last week to discuss allocating the largest amount of TV resources in the nation's history.
Oddly, the mass media showed very little interest. Why? Maybe they do not value public issues. But more likely, this lack of interest may be the result of the commission's irresponsibility.
The commission only provided technical information and failed to explain to the public that this allocation of frequencies could help prevent further erosion of TV programming quality.
The commission said the technology is mature and the era of high-definition television (HDTV) is just around the corner. As the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games will be broadcast on HDTV, the commission and business operators hope that licenses will be issued as soon as possible.
Commercial products are often promoted with the help of major events. For example, in 1959, TV sales were extremely good in Japan, because the Japanese public wanted to watch the royal wedding that year.
Still, not all the Olympic events will be broadcast on HDTV and some HDTV broadcasts can be watched on conventional TV sets. Given these circumstances, how many Taiwanese will purchase the expensive HDTV sets just to watch the Olympic Games? The commission has not provided any statistics.
The commission tosses around slogans -- digital convergence, audio-video interaction, international trends and viewer rights -- that seem designed to turn terrestrial TV into an effective competitor to the cable TV business that dominates the market.
This is an ambitious goal and its success is anything but certain. There are problems, including the low penetration rate of digital TV sets. A generous allotment of public frequencies cannot, on its own, solve that.
Furthermore, the commission apparently has not analyzed why, after three years in operation, the existing 15 digital wireless channels still cannot compete with cable TV. Nor has it considered why the latest distribution would change the fate of digital TV. What conditions have to be met to alleviate their predicament?
As private cable broadcasting systems dominate the market, should the wireless broadcasting platform be public or private to compete effectively? Should the cable networks be required to carry these channels on fixed frequencies, with allotted terrestrial frequencies and accompanying cable TV licenses? What complementary measures will benefit the systems rather than cause conflict? What concerns and market management analyses did the commission conduct before making its policy?
Theoretically, the commission should have carried out a complete survey and evaluation of the TV market when judging possible future market developments and policy responses. However, the commission seemed to have no time to do so. Without sufficient research and analysis, the commission's findings are unhelpful.
Inviting business operators and social groups to a public hearing wasn't a constructive approach. No one should comment on this issue without any prior research. This principle may not apply to social groups that have no authority and little resources, but the commission is the government authority and enjoys greater manpower and resources. Thus, even if the public does not call for an evaluation, the commission should do so for the sake of political accountability.
Feng Chien-san is a professor in the journalism department at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS