Channel 3 debacle for dummies (by a dummy)

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Channel 3 debacle for dummies (by a dummy)
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- If the TV Channel 3 controversy first sounded to you like a nightmarish calculus course, it was the same here. But like most things in life, we can't forever escape its grip.

And this is an intriguing story of legal technicalities, commercial interests and, of course, the human desire for omnipresence. Not when every other Facebook posting is talking about it, slamming the TV station owners, and wondering how the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission is justifying its jaw-dropping wage bills.

I'll avoid the technical parts, not because this is supposed to be child-friendly, but because I could embarrass myself otherwise. The whole issue, someone explained, can be summed up in the following simple analogy: There's one big mess of a market, with shops scattered all over the place. Some shops are doing better business than others. Then the authorities decide to put the market in order. The shops - old and new - are told to move to a new location, a little farther away from shoppers' normal paths. There, the market will have order, and a level playing field will also emerge.

Channel 3 is one big shop in the increasingly messy market and it refuses to move. It's selling well the way things are and is allowed to sell more where it is than it would be at the new place - so why should it relocate? It's also wielding a lease contract that is yet to expire. On top of that, it already has "branches" that will move along to the new location. The big shop is refusing to budge, drawing outcries from rivals and small-time vendors. The market regulators are left looking hopeless, clueless and more and more like a paper tiger.

To make matters more complicated, that big shop has a clever, albeit highly controversial, presence in the new market - and that's in addition to the three branches it set up there "magically" (legally, the big shop does not quite own the branches). The big shop's still sitting tight on the old location, all right, but shoppers venturing into the new market have been able to view and buy its goods online. Some call that a smart way of having it both ways; others deem it exploitative, to put it mildly.

There you have it, an easy analogy for Channel 3's refusal to give up its analog business and move full-scale into the digital marketplace. Technically, you must have heard about the old MCOT concessions, a shrewd bidding strategy involving "another" company, proclaimed injunction and the differences between pay-TV, satellite TV, free TV et al. Well, they all boil down to business survival. The digital marketplace is the new location, but a lot of shoppers still can't access it. Channel 3 currently attracts the lion's share of advertising money and has Thai households' total access to the analog system to thank for that.

The TV station is seeking public sympathy but not getting much. After all, what's happening is liberalisation of the broadcasting industry, and liberalisation means something has to give. Channel 3 is not only being accused of greed, but is also being frowned upon for possibly defying the constitutional will. Broadcasting and telecom frequencies have been constitutionally classified as national assets, meaning nobody exclusively owns them, not even a government.

The NBTC is getting its fair share of the brickbats, and perhaps deservedly so. The commission was created to enforce that constitutional will, but its handling of Channel 3's stubbornness has been far from impressive. Together, the NBTC and Channel 3 have been accused of proving fears that allowing the Thai people to "own" broadcasting and telecom frequencies is impractical.

Social media users have been sharing information on commissioners' salaries and how much Channel 3 has been earning per minute. The figures are making a lot of people turn green, but that's not the point. If telecom and broadcasting frequencies truly belong to the Thai public, the people deserve good content. The question, therefore, is whether what Channel 3 is doing contributes to better content in general, or is simply counterproductive.

A few days ago, an emotional Channel 3 personality tried to remind the public of the station's "contributions" to the TV industry. What was left unsaid was that those contributions were made in an era of virtual monopoly. Channel 3's content has been quite good, but it was good in an environment where there was no really tough competition. The public - who supposedly "own" the frequencies - at least deserves that competition, because it will make the content even better.

The NBTC, meanwhile, can say that every transition is usually accompanied by turmoil. It has had to deal with issues concerning massive vested interests, and political influences have further complicated things. The commissioners can also point at Channel 3 lawsuits against them as proof they are doing their jobs.

But all the problems explain the high salaries, and the commissioners must not forget that no matter how daunting their job is, if they do the right thing they will always have the people on their side. It doesn't matter how powerful telecom giants are, or what influences free-TV operators have. If the NBTC always puts the public interest first and acts on it, the agency will always receive popular support.

What really has to be decided here is whether broadcasting is just an ordinary business or one involving national assets, because each requires a different approach. For a conventional business to succeed, goes the saying, three things are needed - location, location and location. The Channel 3 controversy has arisen because the line between "conventional" and "national asset" is still somewhat blurred. After all, businesses need good locations like we individuals need air. And throughout history, people have died fighting for things far less precious than oxygen.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Channel-3-debacle-for-dummies-(by-a-dummy)-30242886.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-10

[Bluespunk]

At last. An explanation of this story that I understand.

Dummies of the world unite.

[terryp]

and i though it was because channel 3 were obtaining multiple advertising revenue stream,s from the same broadcasts ...but inserting different commercials between the programmes (giving them 5 times the revenue)

[hanuman2543]

"Channel 3s content has been quite good....". The author must live in another Thailand than me.

[ChrisY1]

Good for Channel 3......the regulators have egg on their faces.....no-one wants to cooporate......another fine mess Laurel!!

[GuyL]

"Channel 3s content has been quite good....". The author must live in another Thailand than me.

Let me guess... he is Thai and you are not?

[hanuman2543]

"Channel 3s content has been quite good....". The author must live in another Thailand than me.

Let me guess... he is Thai and you are not?

And this means what? That as a foreigner I m not able to understand how shallow the niveau of the program is or that the Thai audience is too shallow to realise this themselves?

[GuyL]

"Channel 3s content has been quite good....". The author must live in another Thailand than me.

Let me guess... he is Thai and you are not?

And this means what? That as a foreigner I m not able to understand how shallow the niveau of the program is or that the Thai audience is too shallow to realise this themselves?

I was mainly joking, but that just means that often, the average Thai person doesn't have the same tastes that the average foreigner, at least, that's what I have noticed on many occasions. That's all, folks!

Edited September 10, 2014 by GuyL

[rametindallas]

Good for Channel 3......the regulators have egg on their faces.....no-one wants to cooporate......another fine mess Laurel!!

Are you saying that the public doesn't own the broadcast spectrum but that Channel 3 does? If you are not saying that, and the Constitution, also, says Channel 3 does not own the broadcast spectrum they use, why are you saying, 'Good for Channel 3' ?

[rickirs]

Tulsathit Taptim called it right - a dummy explanation by a dummy. He wants to avoid the technical parts because he could embarrass himself otherwise.

The whole matter is about the techical parts and about the law. Channel 3 does NOT own the airwaves; it HOLDS a license to operate at a specified frequency, rules, and restrictions under which the license was issued. The State owns the airwaves, has a right to regulate their use in a fair and equatable manner in compliance with the laws, and the right to make effective economic use of the airwaves for the overall good of the nation. But Channel 3 refuses to comply because it feels it will become less competitive, albeit without any effort to improve its competitiveness. It wants the status quo which comes at the expense of the other broadcasters who comply with the regulations and license requirements. Channel 3 should have its license immediately cancelled; sic the army on them to shutdown the business.

[Camelot]

Another Thai columnist, but not in the same paper, explains it this way:

Analogue TV stations are allowed 10 minutes of advertising an hour (it used to be eight). Digital stations are restricted to six minutes of paid ads an hour. Now do you see why Channel 3 doesn't want to upset the status quo? They charge by the second and make a fortune with their analogue transmissions. Hence the delaying tactics.

It's all about the money (a lot of it)..

[ratcatcher]

Tulsathit Taptim called it right - a dummy explanation by a dummy. He wants to avoid the technical parts because he could embarrass himself otherwise.

The whole matter is about the techical parts and about the law. Channel 3 does NOT own the airwaves; it HOLDS a license to operate at a specified frequency, rules, and restrictions under which the license was issued. The State owns the airwaves, has a right to regulate their use in a fair and equatable manner in compliance with the laws, and the right to make effective economic use of the airwaves for the overall good of the nation. But Channel 3 refuses to comply because it feels it will become less competitive, albeit without any effort to improve its competitiveness. It wants the status quo which comes at the expense of the other broadcasters who comply with the regulations and license requirements. Channel 3 should have its license immediately cancelled; sic the army on them to shutdown the business.

"..sic the army on them to shutdown the business. "

I am sure you are being facetious, but we can't have a bunch of soldiers storming into a civilized TV station and ordering them to cease and desist, can we?

That was then, this is now, a safer more gentle age under the benign guidance of the new smart government. Using military might to control a capitalist TV station somehow seems wrong.

[wandasloan]

Are you saying that the public doesn't own the broadcast spectrum but that Channel 3 does? If you are not saying that, and the Constitution, also, says Channel 3 does not own the broadcast spectrum they use, why are you saying, 'Good for Channel 3' ?

It's not arguable. Channel 3 has leased broadcast spectrums. So yes, for now and within the limits of the lease they "own" the several specific spectrums.

.

[Acharn]

"Channel 3s content has been quite good....". The author must live in another Thailand than me.

Let me guess... he is Thai and you are not?

And this means what? That as a foreigner I m not able to understand how shallow the niveau of the program is or that the Thai audience is too shallow to realise this themselves?

What's a niveau when it's at home?

[Jonmarleesco]

I would appreciate better content. But not half as much as I would appreciate a drastic cut in the time given over to advertisements.

[Thakkar]

I would appreciate better content. But not half as much as I would appreciate a drastic cut in the time given over to advertisements.

I on the other hand hate it when all the lousy programming keeps interrupting the entertaining ads.

T