Revolutionary change to media regulation in Australia is the likely outcome of the current convergence review, something made clear in a discussion paper issued earlier this week.
Yes, there was another big story in media this week, although you could be forgiven for missing it. The Convergence Review, the comprehensive review of media regulation set up by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, put out an issues paper that makes it clear just how groundbreaking its results are likely to be.
Read the whole thing here.
Media watchers have known since before it was announced that big changes were on the way once the government got up the gumption to review media regulation, but this week’s issues paper is the first to make the scope, deregulatory impulses and implications a bit clearer. To quote:
“In the committee’s view it is likely that revolutionary change to the existing policy framework will be needed to respond to convergence.” And the italics are in the original.
What does that mean?
Up for grabs, among other things, are the existing laws governing concentration of media ownership, the present quota system under which commercial television broadcasters must meet certain levels of Australian content, the right of particular media outlets to buy up exclusive rights to sporting and other content, and the whole issue of attempting to measure the “influence” of a media outlet, which is currently key to broadcasting regulation.
Also given new emphasis in this paper is the importance of a dynamic domestic content production industry, and, in a firm nod to Web 2.0 principles, the right of Australians to not only access but also participate in “a diverse mix of services, voices, views and information”.
The issues paper suggests that modern media regulation should abandon the “silo” approach in which different platforms — broadcasting, telecommunications and radio communications — are subjected to different regulations, and instead move towards an approach that focuses on layers.
The layers nominated are infrastructure (such as the wires and pipes that transport the content), the networks that direct and manage the content, the specific content or application, and the devices on which it is accessed.
On the influence of a media outlet, the issues paper says: “The committee … recognises that the concept of ‘influence’ is less clear in the connected world of social media and networking.”
On Australian content, the paper notes that quota requirements do not apply to services delivered over the internet, and asks whether quotas are still appropriate. The clear implication is that more direct subsidies for local content production industry, or for public broadcasters the ABC and SBS, might be the way of the future.
And the issues paper also revives the idea of a media specific public interest test to be applied to media takeovers, in place of cross media ownership rules. This approach was recommended as long ago as the 2000 Productivity Commission report, but was not taken up. The Convergence Committee is reviving the idea.
And there are suggestions that licences could be sought for content, quite separately from means of delivery. And that media companies could just rock in and buy up spectrum, assuming it is available, without necessarily having a specific broadcasting licence.
In short, wow and wow. The Convergence Review might sound dry as sawdust, but in the long term it is likely to change everything.
The issues paper is open for public submissions until October 28. In August, the release of detailed discussion papers will begin. The final report is due in March next year.
The Issues Paper is 42 pages with no index……. a 1 out of 10 for report editing.
Let’s hope the final report is professionally prepared.
It is extremely unlikely that a narrowly based review will change everything. In fact it is typical of your astonishing style that you say something so patently silly. (It is no wonder that you didn’t crack a career in journalism.)
What is clear is that a very great many things have already changed and this committee has the job of trying to make sense of it. (Good luck to them!) And if you want to check out the fate of pre-emptive policy design, take a walk through the maze of broken dreams and wishes; littered with satellite policies, sequestered spectrum, princes of print and queens of screen.
My favourite parts of the paper they’ve pushed out are the amusing references to social media and community-based content. In the ancient times we called these conversations (or diatribes?) but now they are central to media policy. Oh, goody.