Avoiding Conflict Between Communication Policy and Convergence

Cutler, Terry

doi:10.22459/ag.06.02.1999.01

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As observed in a submission to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into broadcasting (Papandrea, 1999), landmark decisions in broadcasting since the BSA was introduced in 1992 have ignored the concept of technological neutrality. The first inroads into the principle of technological neutrality happened almost immediately after the commencement of the BSA, with the enactment of a 'clumsy' (Cutler, 1999) technology-specific regime for satellite subscription broadcasting services (now Part 7 of the BSA, as amended by the Broadcasting Services (Subscription Television Broadcasting) Amendment Act 1992).…”

Section: Departures From Technological Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactive, Not Proactive: Recent Trends In Australian Broadcasting Regulation

Lidgerwood¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T his paper explores how the introduction of digital technologies and the resulting convergence of broadcasting services with other communications services is challenging the current broadcasting regulatory regime in Australia. As the Productivity Commission (2000) recently observed: With advances in digital technology, broadcasting, telecommunications and the Internet are converging rapidly. They are being fundamentally redefined in terms of what they are, who provides services, and how they are produced and delivered. Broadcasting … is not what it was when the Broadcasting Services Act was introduced in 1992. The Broadcasting Services Act (1992) (BSA) appears ill-equipped to deal with 'new media' services which challenge our understanding of what distinguishes a 'broadcasting' service from other services. The legislature's move away from the original assumptions underlying the BSA (particularly the principle of technological neutrality) means that there are no unifying regulatory principles driving the 'converging' broadcasting and communications industries in Australia. The anticipated 'policy and regulatory lag' (Cutler, 1999) is becoming evident. The first part of this paper uses examples of emerging new media services to illustrate how content which looks or sounds the same from the perspective of the audience may be regulated in different ways-depending on how that content is delivered. This will illustrate the mismatch between recent amendments to the BSA and the BSA's 'foundation principles', particularly technological neutrality. The second part of this paper will suggest some possibilities for the way ahead, particularly by reference to the proactive (and pro-convergence) proposals announced in the United Kingdom's Communications White Paper (Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2000). The proposed UK scheme contemplates that regulation will be 'rolled back' when competition deems it unnecessary. If we accept that 'convergence involves a blurring of industry boundaries (for example, broadcasting and online services) and enables firms from traditionally separate industries (for example, broadcasting and telecommunications) to compete in new converged markets' (Telstra, 1999), then as 'new media' content services start gaining a foothold in the Australian marketplace, we need to ask what Australia should be doing to address the 'regulatory lag'.

show abstract

Section: Departures From Technological Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactive, Not Proactive: Recent Trends In Australian Broadcasting Regulation

Lidgerwood¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Avoiding Conflict Between Communication Policy and Convergence

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Reactive, Not Proactive: Recent Trends In Australian Broadcasting Regulation

Reactive, Not Proactive: Recent Trends In Australian Broadcasting Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About