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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS