The issue of must-carry channels for wireless TV stations has not only become the most contentious issue in the debate over amending the three broadcasting acts, it has also become an issue in the legislative elections.
Broadcasting issues becoming such a hot political topic is useful for the transformation of the media, and so this is a positive development. However, it would be worrying if industry interests come to dominate the revision of the three laws: — the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), the Cable Television Act (有線電視法) and the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法).
The proposed amendments are aimed at resolving several pressing problems that are key to Taiwan’s broadcasting industry’s entry into the digital era. However, the Cabinet and lawmakers have allowed the amendments to languish in the legislature for more than three years without solving these issues. This has damaged consumers’ rights and the industry’s competitiveness.
The government, which should reflect and represent the public interest, has been unable to handle this issue. If this is not indicative of a rudderless government, then what is?
The reason it has taken more than three years to achieve consensus on amending the three laws is that there are vested interests competing behind the scenes. Those embroiled in this issue include cable TV systems operators, channel operators and terrestrial TV operators. Of course, there is also no shortage of industry consortia.
It is not very strange that there would be rival interest groups in a freely competitive commercial environment, but it would be a breach of social justice if this hurt national progress and the rights of consumers.
The crux of the problem is that although Taiwan has entered the multi-platform era, the cable TV industry remains highly monopolized. Current cable and TV television operators and new market entrants are squabbling over the few sought-after basic channels.
The problem is that these companies just want channels, but do not care about the services they provide audiences.
Terrestrial TV operators claim that they are responsible entities and answer to the public, but consumers have yet to see that these companies make a sufficient effort to contribute to the nation’s broadcast environment.
The digital terrestrial TV channels set up by the main stations were criticized by consumers for the lack of content at an early stage. Cable TV systems operators that claim that the government has never shown any concern for them are not only sitting on huge profits, they provide insufficient feedback in the shape of public services, and some have entered into an alliance to stabilize benefits with other existing operators.
The end result is that Taiwan’s cable TV program content has sunk to new lows. This is unacceptable to the public.
Terrestrial TV operators are demanding that cable TV operators must be told to carry more terrestrial channels. From the consumers’ point of view, the question is what responsibility terrestrial TV operators are willing to bear.
In addition to the ratio of domestically produced high-resolution programs proposed by the National Communications Commission, what other efforts have been made that the public find acceptable?
We also need to ask the cable TV systems operators opposed to having to carry terrestrial TV channels, why — after enjoying so many years of huge benefits — they continue to find excuses for blocking the abolishment of channel bundles, an issue directly related to the consumers’ right of choice, and why they insist on withholding an unreasonable part of the viewer subscription fees from channel operators and block new competitive operators from entering the market?
If the rival sides on the issue of must-carry channels offer no substantive commitment to the public interest, nothing they say will be anything but sugar-coated defense of their own interests.
Must-carry channels are not a necessary part of the three broadcasting laws, nor are they a necessary choice for consumers. If broadcast operators abandon the interests of consumers, then why should the public foot the bill?
At this critical stage, we ask the government to stand up for the public interest and be courageous enough to demand the construction of a healthy, multi-platform competitive broadcasting environment. The government should set out a list of consumer interests and then demand that all the operators involved commit to these. Whoever promises to come up with the goods, gets the contract.
As for the lawmakers, every party should be invited to put forward their own complete broadcasting reform policies for public examination so that consumers can find out if the must-carry channel issue is directed by any consortia or other vested interests.
We must not forget that a proposed amendment to the Public Television Act (公共電視法) and the draft act against media monopolization have also been left languishing for a long time. How is it that those legislators who claim to be concerned about the public interest can only look to the amendment of the three broadcasting laws and ignore all the other broadcasting-related legislation?
Let us use the Jan. 16 legislative elections to make lawmakers show whether they really care about media reform or if they are just mouthpieces for the industry.
Hu Yuan-hui is an associate professor of communications at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Clare Lear
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS