WhatsNew2Day – Latest News And Breaking Headlines
Millions of Australians watch their favorite series and films on streaming services every day, many directly via internet-connected smart TVs.
Key points:
Potential new law could give prominence to apps for free Australian services on smart TVs
Free-to-air channels support the change, arguing it would level the playing field.
The Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association criticized the idea, calling it ‘controlling’
Some of the country’s biggest media companies are fighting over how these services are presented to the public, arguing that some apps have an unfair advantage.
The federal government is therefore drafting new laws to deal with this situation, which is already being described by critics as an attempt to control Australian television and influence viewing habits.
What is the solution?
New smart TVs often have streaming apps pre-installed: icons leading to subscription services like Netflix, Apple TV+ and Binge flash when the TV is first turned on.
This has led Australia’s free-to-air broadcasters to cry foul, arguing that their services should be given pride of place because they are free.
Instead, they argue that many Australians are left searching for apps such as ABC iview, SBS OnDemand, 9Now, 10Play and 7Plus, and are missing out on what they have to offer.
What is the proposal?
Before last year’s federal election, Labor made a lot of noise about wanting to protect the arts and local media sector.
Since joining government, one proposal has been to give Australian media companies “prominence” on smart TVs.
Under legislation expected to be introduced into Parliament in the next fortnight, TV manufacturers would be forced to ensure free Australian services are put at the front of the queue for viewers.
“Australian local television services have become harder to find,” Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told the National Press Club.
“The reality is that smart devices, connected TVs are no longer what we had when I was young, it’s not a box sitting in a corner.
“I don’t think it’s about popularity, and it’s never been characterized that way: it’s about updating the regulatory framework for the digital age.”
Who thinks this is a good idea?
Unsurprisingly, Australia’s biggest TV companies are in on the action.
Free TV Australia chief executive Bridget Fair said it was simply a matter of leveling the playing field.
Bridget Fair ridiculed the campaign against the proposal. (ABC News)
“Free-to-air broadcasters are very happy to compete with any services that come into the market, and we’re already doing that now,” she said.
“All we ask is that there are no gatekeepers between us and our audience.
“It’s not in the national interest because what we want is a strong local media sector and for people to be able to watch their free TV services – see their local sport, have their local news, have access to their Australian dramas and entertainment.”
Free TV argued that Australia was riding the same wave as other countries, with legislation to establish a “pre-eminence framework” being debated in the UK, some European countries and Canada.
Is everyone convinced?
The Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) is leading the campaign against the proposal.
“Prominence means that one group of providers will gain some sort of special access or dominance at the expense of another,” said Patrick Delany, ASTRA chairman and Foxtel chief executive.
Patrick Delany targeted the government’s proposal. (ABC News)
“And that’s the problem we have, that some services will be preferred over others, and that’s on a TV that’s owned by an Australian consumer, that they’ve paid their hard-earned money for, and we think that the Australians should serve it to them, not the government or a special group of content providers.”
ASTRA went so far as to launch an advertising campaign with the slogan “Now the government wants to control your television.”
“If you’re doing roadblocks or favored apps and manipulating search results, I’m sorry, but that’s control, and we don’t hear any different from the government,” Mr. Delany said.
“Australians are not stupid, they are going to be very unhappy about this.”
Free TV’s Bridget Fair called the suggestion “ridiculous”.
An ASTRA ad campaigning against the Labor proposal.
What is in danger here?
Interestingly, both sides of this debate argue that it’s all about choice for Australian viewers.
But they approach the issue from different angles: Free TV says the public should see that there are free services on offer rather than being forced into a subscription, and ASTRA says the public should have “fair” access and reasonable” to all services.
Paramount, owner of Australia’s Network 10 and operator of streaming service Paramount+, recently left ASTRA and aligned itself with Free TV in the debate.
Mr Delany said subscription services were investing heavily in Australian productions and millions of dollars of spending on TV shows and films could be at risk.
“If you’re emphasizing a bunch of free services ranking ahead of the paid ones, and the paid services are doing a bunch of incredible Australian stories, investing huge amounts of money in Australian stories, it just seems crazy that you would do in any way. thereby restrict the ability of Australians to access it by manipulating search or how you align applications,” he said.
Free TV argued that it had neglected the expenditure of free-to-air channels.
“Commercial TV stations spend $1.5 billion every year on Australian content,” Ms Fair said.
“They bring everyone the best moments in sport, they bring you local news, they bring you entertainment and theater, and that’s what we want to preserve for the future.
“We want a country where we have a local media sector that all Australians can receive, no matter how much they earn or where they live, and that is free to every Australian.”
Is this the only media reform envisaged by the government?
Alongside this debate over importance, the federal government is also exploring how to extend rules for local content production to streaming services.
Broadcasters are required to produce a certain amount of locally produced content each year, which is not the case for streaming services.
This legislation is expected next year, along with other laws addressing what is known as the “anti-siphoning list.”
This is a list of events, such as major sporting competitions, that should be broadcast on free-to-air television rather than through subscription services.
ABC