The National Communications Commission has indicated it will issue two licenses for broadcasting high-definition (HD) content. Operators will be able to bid for the licenses, one of which will be for a commercial channel, the other for a public channel. The commercial channel will be able to broadcast ads, but not the latter, which is to focus on educational, health-related, cultural, theatrical and news programming. However, it will be able to accept funding.
Terrestrial TV will switch to digital on July 1, at which point the current number of terrestrial channels, five, will increase to 16. Cable TV will not make the switch until 2014 and if this process is not regulated or a ceiling is not placed on the number of licenses issued, the number of cable TV channels could jump to 500. This could become a problem, both because of the struggling economy and because young people already spend far more time on the Internet than they do watching TV.
We are unlikely to see much growth in TV advertising and NT$50 billion (US$1.7 billion) a year for TV advertising is clearly insufficient to support 500 channels.
Both licenses are for broadcasting in HD, which raises technological issues. Forgetting for a minute the prohibitive costs of producing HD content or purchasing HD productions, there is the technology threshold to consider. HD broadcasts require the correct equipment at both the broadcast end as well as the reception end.
At the moment, the cable TV system is in standard definition. Eighty-five percent of people in Taiwan are unable to receive HD content through the cable system and the other 15 percent do not have cable at all. Also, people in remote areas or low-income households probably still use the older cathode-ray-tube sets. What percentage of these people can afford HD? How can any policy fail to take people in the lower socioeconomic strata into account?
The notion of another public TV station forbidden from broadcasting ads is also laughable. It is creating yet another Public Television Service. One could be forgiven for suspecting some political agenda behind this policy thinking, tailored to specific corporate interests.
Television policy has implications for society and culture. It has to be well thought through. As these licenses will come under a second single-frequency network, it would make sense to allocate them to existing terrestrial TV providers — allowing them to bolster their channels and establish a “terrestrial TV street.”
If they are given to cable providers, it would mean the public would be obliged to pay NT$600 a month to these companies, the vast majority of which are foreign companies without a stake in Taiwan, who will just send the money overseas.
Giving the licenses to the highest bidder is one way to do it. A better way would be to think the policy through.
According to research on viewing habits, Taiwanese generally watch about 10 channels, which have already established a “terrestrial TV street.”
Four of the privately run channels share programming between them, offering a channel featuring news, business, education and arts, movies and sports, as well as a joint HD channel. They have also taken into account popular satellite TV programming, such as HBO, and broadcast them on the terrestrial channels. There are also about 20 family channels catering to most needs, which can be watched for free.
There is an argument that businesses do not thrive in isolation and that a store would do better if situated in a street full of similar stores. This is perhaps something terrestrial TV providers should think about.
The Government Information Office is scheduled to close in May, with the Department of Broadcasting Affairs, currently responsible for television policy, merging with a new government bureau on film and music under a soon-to-be established ministry of culture. With a new bureau will come a new business climate.
Those providers might want to start talking with the commission now.
Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Communication.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS