The sky's the limit: The broadcasting law<\/p>\n
Mila Day, Contributor, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Every month a new type of cellular phone is released to the
\npublic. The latest would be the one with an attachable digital
\ncamera. We are getting closer and closer to the next generation:
\n3G. When the world talks about new technology, we join the crowd.
\nWhile they have a good plan, a solid infrastructure and the \"what
\nnext\" vision, we, unfortunately, do not have these things. Not
\nyet.<\/p>\n
We must hurry to catch up before digital convergence reaches
\nits peak, but unfortunately we have less to start with. Similar
\nin nature to the United States' 1996 Telecommunications Act would
\nbe our Broadcast Law No. 24\/1997, which has been sitting in the
\nlegislature for some time.<\/p>\n
There is no discussion of possible technological advances
\nthere, not even a vision. The subject of discussion and debate is
\nmore similar to what was settled 100 years ago in the U.S. Here
\nare some of the issues:<\/p>\n
First, the Indonesia Broadcasting Commission (KPI). KPI may
\nlikely resemble the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
\nthe United States. However, the KPI will not, or must not, have
\nthe same authority as the FCC.<\/p>\n
Some of the FCC's tasks were outlined in Section 303 of the
\nCommunications Act of 1934, which led to the birth of the FCC:
\n\"(T)o classify [radio] stations and prescribe services, assign
\nfrequencies and power, approve equipment and mandate standards
\nfor levels of interference, make regulations for stations with
\nnetwork affiliations, prescribe qualifications for station owners
\nand operators, levy fines and forfeitures and issue cease and
\ndesist orders.\"<\/p>\n
Additional comprehensive tasks were added as new technologies
\nappeared -- television, satellite and microwave communication,
\ncable TV, cellular phones, wireless applications and the
\nInternet.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, the KPI's powers will be limited. The House of
\nRepresentatives has suggested that frequency allocation should go
\nto the KPI, but the government, in this case the ministry of
\ncommunications and information, did not agree to this. Until now,
\nfrequency spectrum allocation has been under the Ministry of
\nTransportation, which is also concerned with frequencies for
\ntransportation.<\/p>\n
It is tough to decide who gets what frequency in what
\nlocation. Indonesia already has 10 private TV stations (RCTI,
\nSCTV, TPI, ANteve,Indosiar, Metro TV, TV7,
\nLativi, TransTV, and TV-G), and one government-owned station
\n(TVRI). All the stations have gone national, and already reach
\nmore than 50 percent of all areas.<\/p>\n
More repeat stations will be established in the years to come,
\nand, if possible, new licenses will be issued for more TV
\nstations.<\/p>\n
However, if the KPI cannot \"assign frequencies and power\" for
\nstations (radio or TV), how will they perform? Technological
\nadvancements in broadcasting and telecommunications are moving
\nfaster than ever. In other parts of the world, the digital
\ncompression has eased off allocations. Has the government
\nforeseen this?<\/p>\n
The Indonesian TV industry is different from the U.S. model.
\nWe don't have network stations with their affiliated stations,
\nnor independent stations. There are no cable networks with
\nmultiple channels. The TV network business model in the U.S. was
\nrooted from the radio network, where one network can have several
\naffiliated stations in different cities all over the country.<\/p>\n
The FCC's first and main task was frequency allocation for
\nradio stations. When noncommercial organizations, such as
\nchurches and schools, pleaded to establish stations they were
\nunable to get a frequency because most were granted to commercial
\nstations.<\/p>\n
Not until 1945 did the FCC clearly define frequencies for
\neducational and nonprofit stations: 88 MHz to 92 MHz. Allocation
\nfor television was another drawn-out, conflicted issue.<\/p>\n
Established on June 11, 1934, the FCC, whose members were
\nappointed by the President and approved by the Congress, had to
\ndecide whether licenses could be passed to network or local
\nstations.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in Indonesia the government cannot decide whether
\nallocations should be national or local. The spirit of Indonesian
\nLaw No. 22\/1999 on provincial autonomy has supported frequency
\nallocation at the provincial level.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the ministries of transportation and
\ninformation still want to regulate it at the national level.
\nUnfortunately, this means that provincial or community television
\ncould be limited or even banned -- if it interferes in national
\nTV frequencies.<\/p>\n
The case of East Java's JTV has proven this; one of its
\ntransmitting towers was shut down by the police due to
\ninterference with Indosiar.<\/p>\n
And regarding community or public television, say goodbye to
\npublic TV. Instead welcome a new hybrid station: TVRI. State-
\nowned but commercial television has given way to public TV, which
\nwas a title that TVRI once saw as a burden.<\/p>\n
Many applauded the effort by Sumita Tobing, TVRI's president
\ndirector, to make this change, while many others condemned it.
\nNow, we must redefine the business model of public TV.<\/p>\n
In the U.S. and many developed countries, public TV is fully
\nfunded by the government and appreciative contributors, and there
\nare no commercials between programs. Unfortunately, TVRI has to
\nsupport too many employees spread across the country, and has
\nless money for good programs.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, community TV, broadcasting locally or
\nprovincially, has bloomed everywhere. From the campus (Ganesha
\nTV, ITB, Bandung) to corporate offices (Caltex, Kalimantan Timur)
\nto JTV (East Java province), most of them are able to finance
\ntheir own programs, even for one to two-hour broadcast
\noperations. The problem arises when they use up the frequency,
\nbut only if they are not using cable for distribution.<\/p>\n
Both public and community television station should clearly
\n\"characterize\" the public and community they represent. The new
\nbroadcast law must consider them, not \"terminate\" them. What
\nwould happen if all mass media went commercial? The government
\nprovides no room for education and knowledge, again?<\/p>\n
Then there are the overlooked issues. Many issues could hit
\nthe deck in time. Sex and violence must be supervised, while home
\ntaping could be copyright infringement. Overexposed children,
\nprogram-length commercials, abuse of language, court TV, digital
\ntransition and convergence could be left out. Broadcast Law No.
\n24\/1997 must clearly define and regulate these things beforehand,
\nnot afterward in the form of amendments.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-skys-the-limit-the-broadcasting-law-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}