‘Digital changeover will lead to more better-quality TV stations’

Government backbencher Charló Bonnici denied accusations made by opposition spokesman on the media Gino Cauchi that there existed a situation whereby it would be impossible to introduce new stations on the digital broadcasting framework because the frequency to be used would be only able to transmit six channels.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill, Mr Bonnici said the Bill was an important instrument to continue with the transition to digital television. The digital changeover would lead to more better-quality TV stations.

The object of this Bill is to update the Broadcasting Act with regard to the licencing of the general interest objective network and of general interest broadcasting content licensees and to extend further pluralism in broadcasting.

He explained that through the changeover to digital television, viewers would now be able to watch more free-to-air local channels. People would now not have to pay to watch Education 22 and another station chosen by the Broadcasting Authority.

The changeover to a digital system started last February. PBS had already made the transition and five other stations would be making the changeover soon since the digital system would start working on June 1.

This shift to digital television was an EU initiative and all countries had to switch by 2012. Many countries had already moved to the digital system. By 2015, the analogue system would no longer be functional.

The initiative for the changeover started in 2005. A strategy was set which established the structure for the transition.

The first part of this strategy aimed to increase competition in the area of paid television.

This strategy seems to have worked since there were currently 130,000 subscriptions to the two service providers – Go and Melita.

The second strategy dealt with the free-to-air section. This would affect the 16,000 households who watched television through the use of an aerial. In January an intensive advertising campaign which explained the changeover was launched.

Mr Bonnici explained that one frequency had been assigned for commercial use while the other one was allocated to the general interest which is the free-to-air. The latter proved to be quite complex.

The commercial aspect on the other hand was tackled without any problems.

Mr Cauchi had criticised the term “beauty contest”. Mr Bonnici said that this was the international terminology to explain the allocation of the spectrum. When Malta had presented the beauty contest, only two companies, Go and Multiplus, had expressed their interest.

During the 2006 conference, the number of Direct Digital TV (DDTV) network operators was reduced to one. It was a result of this conference that the number of players on the market decreased from two to one.

He did not agree with Mr Cauchi’s statement that this had happened because Go had bought Multiplus. Go currently had eight frequencies, the same number it had during the 2005 “beauty contest”.

Mr Bonnici emphasised that one should not forget the role of Melita in this sector. It was incorrect to say that there was no competition in this sector.

Moreover, there was still the possibility that another player using the satellite system joining the market. The competition in this sector had also resulted in a spinover for other sectors since service providers usually sold packages.

Due to this competition in the market, the number of households depending on free-to-air greatly decreased. Research carried out recently showed that at present only 10 per cent of households relied on free-to-air transmission. This showed that the government’s strategy had paid off.

During the 2006 regional conference, Malta was assigned two frequencies. Contrary to the allegations by Mr Cauchi that had let the frequencies slip from its hands, the number of frequencies had to be divided between different regions in order to grant equitable access. Other frequencies were still being negotiated between countries.

The second phase, which regarded the general interest free-to air, was a much more delicate process. There had been a process of consultation with broadcasters who said that they would prefer one station to manage the Maltese frequency.

This was one of the reasons why the process had been prolonged.

PBS made a formal request to establish its own network; this was accepted on the basis that it would see to the five other broadcasters. Go was involved in this process because it had been subcontracted by PBS to deal with the technical aspect.

Mr Cauchi had questioned why PBS had not handled the procedure themselves. Mr Bonnici said that this option had been deeply evaluated but it was concluded that it did not make financial sense.

Mr Cauchi had also expressed concern that the stations would now have to pay €16,000 for the network carriage fee. Mr Bonnici said that if PBS had decided to make the investment and not subcontracted Go, this sum would have been much larger.

With regard to the question whether Malta should have used Mpeg2 or Mpeg4, Mr Bonnici said that had it been decided to use Mpeg4 this would have resulted as an added financial burden to televiewers since television sets bought until two years ago would have to be changed. A total of 82 per cent of the people who watched free-to-air television used an old television set.

Mr Cauchi had said that with the transition to digital television there was the risk that free-to-air TV stations would be limited to local stations only. Mr Bonnici said that never had any guarantee that going forward it would still manage to transmit Italian stations free-to-air.

Concluding, Mr Bonnici said that the Bill was taking broadcasting to the next level. However, this was only the first step. He was confident local stations would take this opportunity to increase the success of the sector.

Stephen Spiteri (PN) said that the Maltese broadcasting sector was being strengthened, while the consumer had a wider choice and therefore he was surprised by the opposition’s harsh criticism of PBS.

Notwithstanding, Dr Spiteri called for an improved and more harmonised national station, allowing for a political balance of media coverage, projects and discussions. Liberalisation in broadcasting that started 20 years ago breathed new life into the station, intensifying democratic strength. This resulted in people freely and fearlessly expressing themselves.

There was the need to move away from politicising PBS as it was not meant to be partisan. This balance was necessary for the benefit of all Maltese. He said that it was crucial for the local media to be better prepared. He encouraging journalists to further their training, taking courses and be more professional in their work. The communication was used both for entertainment as well as information and therefore, one needed to engage people further and encourage them to enjoy gaining knowledge.

Pluralism in broadcasting had led to a better choice and increased competitiveness, hence leading to further development in the sector.

The proposed amendments in the Bill were made following extensive debates that kept citizens at the forefront. Studies showed that people were still making use of aerials and five per cent used alternative methods to get access to programmes and stations. Local broadcasting methods were being improved.

Dr Spiteri said that one could safely say that the national station was not the government’s mouthpiece. So much so that recent surveys had shown that PB S was increasing its popularity among audiences. This was no coincidence, but was rather due to an improvement in services of a higher quality.

Concluding, Dr Spiteri said that Malta had developed a great deal in broadcasting and he warned against the national station leaning towards one political party.

Political stations balanced each other well and PBS needed to further maintain this balance. He augured that the Bill would eventually lead to a freer and more serious broadcasting sector that would make us proud.