[cma-l] The Future of Digital Terrestrial Television - debate today

[Phil Shepherd]

Dear Members and Friends

I went to the Westminster Media Forum debate on 'The Future of Digital
Terrestrial Television (DTT)' today and append below the short article I
submitted to the documentation of that event.  It was good to see Vince from
Public Media and Dan from 6 TV / ULTV there too.

The Future of DTT
 
"Along with partners from United for Local Television (ULTV) I have a real
concern that the emerging landscape for digital terrestrial television and
connected media is going to be catastrophic for small-scale services seeking
to promote democratic participation and civil society.  We heard a lot this
morning about the interests of the biggest players but rather less about how
they may be creating a technical and financial environment that will
marginalise and to a great extent exclude smaller providers. This will I
believe be greatly to the disservice of our fragile democracy.  Only once or
twice in this morning¹s debate did I hear any reference to the wider context
in which TV operates ­ few references to social inclusion, to access, to
making any kind of contribution to a more cohesive, sustainable society, no
mention at all of skills development or education. Such limited perspective
threatens more than the local and community based services that so badly
need the oxygen of spectrum, it erodes the principles of universal access to
public service broadcasting.  The future is local ­ the planet is telling us
that if we care to listen ­ and local and community radio and TV has to be
recognised as a key platform for public service broadcasting of the future.
 
Partner in the Policy Spectrum Group at Ofcom, Professor H Nwani was one of
few who spoke of the importance of Œaccess and inclusion¹ but sadly Ofcom¹s
policy to date has been inconsistent in this respect.  Defending Ofcom¹s
view that spectrum should be sold (in part by auction) and not ring fenced
for a particular use,  ŒH¹ used the analogy of someone choosing to locate a
business in London rather than Œin the sticks¹ ­ why choose to be in London
if you cannot pay the higher rate? Sorry H, but to me this is not a true
analogy.  Those locating a business make choices dictated by their available
assets ­ why should the same rule apply to those least advantaged and most
isolated in our communities who simply wish to make their voices heard?
Spectrum to me is a public entitlement like clean water or earth.  We should
all be entitled to access at least some of it for the public good.
 
We in ULTV are often told that the internet is the answer ­ Œyou¹ve got
YouTube, what¹s the problem?¹ Coming as this frequently does from people who
are doing very well out of the mainstream broadcasting world this is at best
patronising.  Ten million people in this country are still not online and
there is evidence that in some areas the digital divide is widening.
Convergence of internet and TV seems to hold the promise of better access ­
but this won¹t apply if the technical and financial hurdles of that new
converged environment marginalise smaller and not-for-profit providers.
 
We need a level playing field, we need government support for it and we need
it urgently.
 
Phil Shepherd
 
Chair of Council
CMA