The sky's the limit: The broadcasting law

The sky's the limit: The broadcasting law

Mila Day, Contributor, Jakarta

Every month a new type of cellular phone is released to the
public. The latest would be the one with an attachable digital
camera. We are getting closer and closer to the next generation:
3G. When the world talks about new technology, we join the crowd.
While they have a good plan, a solid infrastructure and the "what
next" vision, we, unfortunately, do not have these things. Not
yet.

We must hurry to catch up before digital convergence reaches
its peak, but unfortunately we have less to start with. Similar
in nature to the United States' 1996 Telecommunications Act would
be our Broadcast Law No. 24/1997, which has been sitting in the
legislature for some time.

There is no discussion of possible technological advances
there, not even a vision. The subject of discussion and debate is
more similar to what was settled 100 years ago in the U.S. Here
are some of the issues:

First, the Indonesia Broadcasting Commission (KPI). KPI may
likely resemble the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
the United States. However, the KPI will not, or must not, have
the same authority as the FCC.

Some of the FCC's tasks were outlined in Section 303 of the
Communications Act of 1934, which led to the birth of the FCC:
"(T)o classify [radio] stations and prescribe services, assign
frequencies and power, approve equipment and mandate standards
for levels of interference, make regulations for stations with
network affiliations, prescribe qualifications for station owners
and operators, levy fines and forfeitures and issue cease and
desist orders."

Additional comprehensive tasks were added as new technologies
appeared -- television, satellite and microwave communication,
cable TV, cellular phones, wireless applications and the
Internet.

In Indonesia, the KPI's powers will be limited. The House of
Representatives has suggested that frequency allocation should go
to the KPI, but the government, in this case the ministry of
communications and information, did not agree to this. Until now,
frequency spectrum allocation has been under the Ministry of
Transportation, which is also concerned with frequencies for
transportation.

It is tough to decide who gets what frequency in what
location. Indonesia already has 10 private TV stations (RCTI,
SCTV, TPI, ANteve,Indosiar, Metro TV, TV7,
Lativi, TransTV, and TV-G), and one government-owned station
(TVRI). All the stations have gone national, and already reach
more than 50 percent of all areas.

More repeat stations will be established in the years to come,
and, if possible, new licenses will be issued for more TV
stations.

However, if the KPI cannot "assign frequencies and power" for
stations (radio or TV), how will they perform? Technological
advancements in broadcasting and telecommunications are moving
faster than ever. In other parts of the world, the digital
compression has eased off allocations. Has the government
foreseen this?

The Indonesian TV industry is different from the U.S. model.
We don't have network stations with their affiliated stations,
nor independent stations. There are no cable networks with
multiple channels. The TV network business model in the U.S. was
rooted from the radio network, where one network can have several
affiliated stations in different cities all over the country.

The FCC's first and main task was frequency allocation for
radio stations. When noncommercial organizations, such as
churches and schools, pleaded to establish stations they were
unable to get a frequency because most were granted to commercial
stations.

Not until 1945 did the FCC clearly define frequencies for
educational and nonprofit stations: 88 MHz to 92 MHz. Allocation
for television was another drawn-out, conflicted issue.

Established on June 11, 1934, the FCC, whose members were
appointed by the President and approved by the Congress, had to
decide whether licenses could be passed to network or local
stations.

Similarly, in Indonesia the government cannot decide whether
allocations should be national or local. The spirit of Indonesian
Law No. 22/1999 on provincial autonomy has supported frequency
allocation at the provincial level.

On the other hand, the ministries of transportation and
information still want to regulate it at the national level.
Unfortunately, this means that provincial or community television
could be limited or even banned -- if it interferes in national
TV frequencies.

The case of East Java's JTV has proven this; one of its
transmitting towers was shut down by the police due to
interference with Indosiar.

And regarding community or public television, say goodbye to
public TV. Instead welcome a new hybrid station: TVRI. State-
owned but commercial television has given way to public TV, which
was a title that TVRI once saw as a burden.

Many applauded the effort by Sumita Tobing, TVRI's president
director, to make this change, while many others condemned it.
Now, we must redefine the business model of public TV.

In the U.S. and many developed countries, public TV is fully
funded by the government and appreciative contributors, and there
are no commercials between programs. Unfortunately, TVRI has to
support too many employees spread across the country, and has
less money for good programs.

On the contrary, community TV, broadcasting locally or
provincially, has bloomed everywhere. From the campus (Ganesha
TV, ITB, Bandung) to corporate offices (Caltex, Kalimantan Timur)
to JTV (East Java province), most of them are able to finance
their own programs, even for one to two-hour broadcast
operations. The problem arises when they use up the frequency,
but only if they are not using cable for distribution.

Both public and community television station should clearly
"characterize" the public and community they represent. The new
broadcast law must consider them, not "terminate" them. What
would happen if all mass media went commercial? The government
provides no room for education and knowledge, again?

Then there are the overlooked issues. Many issues could hit
the deck in time. Sex and violence must be supervised, while home
taping could be copyright infringement. Overexposed children,
program-length commercials, abuse of language, court TV, digital
transition and convergence could be left out. Broadcast Law No.
24/1997 must clearly define and regulate these things beforehand,
not afterward in the form of amendments.