The Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia

Proceedings of the 2007 Computer Science and IT Education Conference The Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia Niranjala (Nina) D. Weerakkody School of Communication & Creative Arts, Faculty of Arts, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia nina.weerakkody@deakin.edu.au Abstract Australia adopted digital TV (DTV) on January 1, 2001 but due to slow adoption by end users, the deadline to discontinue the analog signal has so far been postponed twice. This paper examines the history and current status of DTV adoption in Australia with reference to theories of adoption and diffusion and the Justification Model of Technology and why end users appear reluctant to adopt-in spite of affordable converters. End user opinions are examined on ‘why they do not adopt’ and ‘what may encourage them to adopt’, using public submissions to the 2005 parliamentary ‘Inquiry into the uptake of digital TV in Australia’. The paper advocates relevant media literacy programs to address the low public awareness of DTV and its benefits because its rejection may result in less affluent end users losing the chance to receive a range of convergent services in the future via the ubiquitous and affordable television. Keywords: Digital TV, Australian media, High Definition TV (HDTV), adoption and diffusion of new technology, media policy and regulation, diffusion of innovations, discourses and their framing, media literacy, digital broadcasting, technology and power. Introduction The superior technical quality of digital television sound and pictures, such as those provided by High Definition TV (HDTV) and DVDs (Digital Video Disks) allow viewers to ‘feel a sense of reality through high resolution images, wide screen ratios’ and standards of video and audio, giving them a feeling of being ‘right there’ (Lee & Lee, 2006, p. 3). As HDTV technology converges with digital broadcasting, the digital images and the content they transmit and receive, can improve viewers’ experiences of watching TV via the home TV set due to the concept of ‘presence’ (Lee & Lee, 2006). For example, when watching a televised sporting event or a TV travel show, the digital images on a large and wide Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or Plasma screen and the surround sound it in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. provides can give those watching at Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these home an illusory ‘degree of realistic exworks for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit perience’ and emotions (Fukuta, 1990; or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice cited in Lee & Lee, 2006, p. 4). in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission. Tracing the 50 year history of Australian TV, Thomas (2006, p. 197) describes how colour TV introduced on March 1, 1975; digital TV introduced on January Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia 1, 2001; and the new wide screen and large plasma screens have made a great difference to televised sport- making them more real. To the large sports fan segment and others of the Australian population, the large plasma screens and digital technologies such as HDTV have been a bonanza. Tanner (2006, p. 2) sees DTV as ‘the most significant change brought to the TV viewing experience’, since the introduction of Pay or subscription TV in 1996, that increased the choice of channels and content available to the Australian end users or audiences. He further argues that DTV increased the viewing experience far more than the introduction of colour TV did, because DTV can provide for increased convergence (coming together of previously separated functions and audio visual media such as the internet in the same equipment) and interactivity (giving the function of feedback to viewers), that previous technologies could not (Weerakkody & Tremblay, 2003). Policy Making and Digital TV Adoption in Australia However, TV anywhere is also about cultural memories, industrial processes, programming, economics and regulation (Jacka & Turnbull, 2006, p. 67). On 14th March 2006, Senator Helen Coonan – The Minister for Communications and Information Technology in Australia, released a discussion paper titled Meeting the Digital Challenge: Reforming Australia’s media in the digital age. Among its many proposals for the future of the media industries and pertaining to the further deregulation of media ownership, was the plan for digital TV in Australia (DCITA, 2006; Murphy, 2006). It included postponing the switching off of the analog TV signals from December 31, 2008 as earlier envisaged, to 2010 and 2012. The discussion paper was the result of more than a year of closed door consultations with Australia’s most powerful media moguls. But ‘An inquiry into the uptake of digital TV in Australia’ by the House Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, that had attracted 96 submissions by December 31, 2005 (Parliament of Australia, 2005), only allowed three months for public submissions. With the current Coalition government enjoying majorities in both houses of the Australian parliament, the policies outlined in the discussion paper became law in October 2006. The adoption process for DTV in Australia had been far from smooth, because its negotiations date back to 26 May 1993 and underwent much hesitation, discussion and power brokering. Even then, only free-to-air (FTA) broadcasting was allowed to adopt it on January1, 2001, while being restrained by prescriptive and protectionist policies and regulations aimed at safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders. The Australian government also imposed restrictions on non-FTA entities as to what video content they can carry in the digital format to help FTAs recoup their A$1 billion investment in the new technology. To protect users from being forced to invest in new digital equipment necessary for the conversion such as set-top-converters for existing analog TV sets or new digital TV sets and converters, it required the FTAs to continue the analog signal until 31 December 2004 (Weerakkody & Tremblay, 2003). This deadline was first postponed to December 31, 2008 and in 2006, till 2010/2012, due to low levels of adoption of DTV by end users. This situation proved to the Australian government and the media industry that ultimately, the future of digital TV will depend on user acceptance of the technology (Weerakkody, 2006). Digital TV and the End User Even though end users or viewers may be the final arbiters of DTV adoption (Weerakkody & Tremblay, 2003), independent, in-depth, scholarly research on digital TV adoption carried out in Australia that takes the users’ perspective is rare. Most research on DTV were carried out for and published by Australian government agencies such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) or the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These are generally based on one-off surveys (Commonwealth of Australia, 2006a, 2006b; Loncar, Fairbrother, & Dalziel, 2005; Varan 704 Weerakkody & Morrison, 2003). Currently, the users’ only choice of action with DTV, appear to be between adoption and non-adoption, as users’ lack of knowledge about the technology has either given rise to ignorance of the need to upgrade or as ‘not needed’ till the analog signal is switched off or DTV only as ‘TVs with larger expensive screens we can’t afford’. Dealers claim they were unwilling to publicise the availability of converters as the digital TV signal was not available in most non-metropolitan areas at the early stages of DTV adoption. Therefore, it is important to conduct independent scholarly research that examine the current ‘slow’ adoption of DTV from the point of view of the users, who are expected to bear the cost of converting their analog sets to digital, but appear to have little say in its policy making or regulation. Jock Given (2007) sees the adoption of DTV is Australia as been implemented not because it can be used in ‘inventing ways- but because it is happening everywhere and Australia does not want to look out of place … (and) the consumers have worked it out’ (p. 18). Preliminary research on the subject of adoption and diffusion; policy making and regulation of digital TV carried out by Weerakkody (2002, 2003, 2006) indicated a severe lack of user awareness about DTV, its attributes and adoption in Australia. As user rejection of the technology of this innovation can lead to Australia missing the future applications and commercial advantages of the technology and the opportunity to address the ‘digital divide’ in the 21st century with access to the internet via home DTV sets, it is important to examine in more detail, what the end users know about DTV, what factors influenced their decision to adopt or not adopt and what they would actually want DTV to be able to do in the future. Longitudinal studies on DTV are needed because the technology and its applications as well as the Australian and global media environment and regulation will invariably change between now and the analog switch off in 2010. As a consequence of the changes made to media ownership laws in 2006, this has already begun to happen. This paper is therefore a preliminary investigation of the issues involved in the shift to digital TV, its policy and regulation from the perspective of the public or the end users, by analysing the formally submitted views of end users to a parliamentary inquiry on DTV conducted in 2005. Current Technological Adoption of DTV in Australia DTV is the next stage of evolution of television and compared to the change brought to vinyl records by Compact Discs (CDs). The global trend is also to go digital with High Definition (HD) DVDs and interactivity. Analog TV has reached the end of its development cycle with its transmission deteriorating further as cities grow larger. DTV can overcome problems of signal reception, especially with the national broadcasters ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and SBS (the multicultural broadcaster- Special Broadcasting Service) channels, caused by reflections and obstructions from buildings or terrain features, interference of electrical and mechanical noise, and other problems. Currently, Australia uses two types of DTV viz. High Definition TV (HDTV) and Standard Definition TV (SDTV). FTAs are required by the government to broadcast the analog, SDTV and HDTV signals until the switchover. The SDTV picture is similar to the existing analog picture but has the widescreen format and offers improved reception. HDTV has an image resolution higher than SDTV and the existing analog and has a widescreen. In late 2005, a set top converter needed to upgrade the picture of a user’s analog TV set cost between $99 and $249 for SDTV and $299 and $799 for HDTV. The digital picture viewed on a converted analog TV set will have parts of the picture missing on the sides due to the absence of a widescreen. A built in tuner in a TV set allows a household to use the entire TV/DVD /VCR set up with just one remote control. A high end HDTV converter costing $1500 allows a user to record two programs simultaneously on its hard drive, making a VCR or DVD recorder, redundant. 705 Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia In an effort to encourage DTV diffusion, the Australian government allowed Pay TV (Foxtel, Austar etc.) to go digital in March 2004. They currently do so with the SDTV format and include the ABC, ABC2 (its second digital channel), SBS and Channel 9 from FTA television in digital format in their services. Foxtel has begun to gradually discontinue its analog signal and already did so with the History channel on October 1, 2006. Foxtel however, offered the changeover without an installation fee and at the same monthly subscription rates of the current non-digital services for similar packages. (However, these charges were slightly increased in December 2006.) A survey carried out in July 2005 with 1148 television using households, and in October 2006 with 1537 TV using households, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found that in 2005, 20.4% respondents, either Did not know much about DTV or had not thought about it. This number has unfortunately increased to 25.4% in 2006. Have to buy equipment /too expensive/not good value was the reason given for non-adoption in 2005 by 26.6% and 2006 by 22% of respondents. Don’t watch much (free-to-air) TV/ Don’t want to watch more was the response of 32% in 2005 and 19.4% in 2006. Currently satisfied/no need was chosen by 11.8% in 2005 and 14.7% in 2006 (“Take-up of digital TV accelerates,” 2007). The good news gathered from these ACMA surveys is that in 2006 the penetration of digital TV in Australia in October 2006 was reported as 41.0% households – who were either using digital free to air (with set top boxes or integrated tuners) or digital subscription or Pay TV. The percentage of households adopting digital free-to-air TV in July 2005 was 13% but it had more than doubled or increased up to 29.6% in October 2006. The digital TV adoption via subscription TV was 23.7% in 2005 while it was 26.4% in October 2006. The study also assumes that in 2006, 90% of subscription TV was digital (“Take-up of digital TV accelerates,” 2007). Among the reasons for conversion given by respondents in the ACMA survey in October, 2006, the most cited was better or clearer picture / picture quality (36.5%), Upgrading / replacing TV/Need for new TV (28.4%); improved reception / signal (19.6%); extra channels / variety and choice (15.6%); new/latest/best technology (14.7%); need it eventually/change over/long-term decision (12.7%); and larger picture / widescreen (9.7%) (“Take-up of digital TV accelerates,” 2007). The Main Stakeholders of DTV in Australia This paper identifies six main groups of stakeholders of the DTV debates in Australia. They are: the users or audience members, broadcasters (who were the first to be given permission to go digital and some of whom have major interests in Pay TV which has also adopted digital); TV content producers; the Government; telecommunications organisations; and equipment manufacturers and dealers. To the user , DTV on FTA television currently provides higher quality pictures (with a 16: 9 wide screen instead of the 4:3 of analog), CD quality surround sound, close captioning and a few extra channels such as ABC 2 and the SBS and Channel 7 program guides. When set up to its full potential, DTV can also provide different camera angles, multi-channelling (more than one channel from the same broadcaster) as well as new channels; delivering data such as the Internet; and interactivity to choose what to watch and when. Broadcasters can benefit from multi-channelling that allows for airing different but simultaneous programming aimed at different audiences, which is called ‘narrowcasting’. DTV’s capacity for back channelling allows for commerce directly via the TV set, polling, and for collecting ratings information in the future. The end of the simulcasting of the analog, SDTV and HDTV signals required during the interim period means the DTV roll over would free their large networks of terrestrial analog transmitters (Tanner, 2006). TV content producers can benefit from the wide screen format and higher audio-visual 706 Weerakkody quality best suited for dramas, sports, news, lifestyle and other programming. Governments benefit from DTV’s efficient use of the broadcast spectrum, as they can use the additional spectrum released as VHF and UHF spectrum currently used for analog TV for more DTV services, new applications (Tanner, 2006) or sell that spectrum to telecommunication companies at a high price. Other telecommunication organisations can use the new channels of the DTV spectrum to provide mobile TV and other services. DTV equipment manufacturers and dealers benefit from the new business created by DTV equipment that are more expensive than those in existing analog for users, such as Plasma and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) TVs and DTV converters. Of the six groups serving as the main stakeholders in the DTV debate in Australia and elsewhere, the users are the least powerful among them as they are not sufficiently organised, equipped or resourced to be able to lobby the government or the other groups on their behalf. At the moment, users are also the group that benefits the least from the adoption, as the programming or channels have not changed with DTV except with the addition of ABC2- as a new digital only channel. The 1998 legislation that allowed the existing broadcasters to adopt digital TV in 2001 was a win for FTA broadcasters, led by the late Kerry Packer of Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL) which owns Channel 9 TV. Pay TV was later allowed to go digital and its largest company Foxtel, is 50% owned by Telstra (the largest telecommunications company in Australia), and 25% each owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited and PBL. Low Rates of DTV Adoption in Australia By 31 December 2005, only 15.5% of Australian households surveyed had the capacity for Freeto-air digital TV reception or adopted the technology (Commonwealth of Australia, 2006a). Varan & Morrison (2003) had predicted that only 46% of Australian households will be converted to DTV by 2008. In 2005, a total of about 600,000 digital TV sets and set top boxes were sold in Australia. In contrast, the number of new analog TV sets, VCRs and DVD recorders sold during the same period totalled at close to 2 million (Tanner, 2006). In other words, the end users appear to be unconcerned about the DTV roll over set out for January 1, 2008 at the time and kept on purchasing the ‘old’ technology in 2005, without bothering with the ‘new’ technology of DTV. This situation indicated that governments may decide if and when a technology is adopted, legislate its development, and set formal policy (influenced by the more powerful stakeholders), but these may be superfluous to actual adoption of the technology (irrespective of its advantages and value), which is ultimately dependent on user behaviour (Owen, 1999). When announcing the proposed postponement of the analog switch over to 2010/2012 on 14 March 2006, Senator Coonan-the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, explained that these analog switch-off dates were in line with those of the European Union (Coonan, 2006), which is 2012. Tanner (2006, p. 8) reports that the United Kingdom has set it for 2008 and 2012; Japan for 2011; while the USA has mandated it for Wednesday the 17th of February, 2009 (two days after Super Bowl on 15th February, 2009 which falls on a Monday). The USA has also mandated a built in tuner for new TV sets currently sold. The Minister’s proposal (along with many revisions to ownership rules urged by the media industry) was passed by the Australian Senate and Parliament in October 2006. The ‘Social Gamble’ of Policy Making The Justification Model of Technology (Hamelink, 1988) sees the decision-making about technology as a form of ‘social gambling’. This is due to our having only partial knowledge about a technology, its capabilities, potential applications, and effects. We also do not know what a technology will be actually used for once implemented or even if it will be adopted at all by end users. When making policy about a new technology such as DTV, issues related to the established 707 Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia base or the existing technology (of analog TV) and infrastructure the new technology will replace, also need consideration (Green, 2001). Regulation of New Technology Some argue that technologies ‘fail’ or get adopted ‘too slowly’ simply due to lack of user demand, poor marketing and /or regulatory policies. This supply-side technological imperative assumes all technology as good but that significant variations in diffusion rates occur for a given new technology based on the strategic and tactical policies imposed on the technology and into a given cultural and economic environment (Weerakkody & Tremblay, 2003). For example, Japan had developed DTV to a state of readiness for adoption by 1985 within its culture of government supported research and development, high user acceptance and affordable prices of technology. In the European Union, the United Kingdom records a 63% rate of adoption for DTV -a large part of which is via Pay TV, which provided converters free of charge or at subsided rates to users at different times. On the other hand, Italy records an adoption rate of 17.7% and Germany 25.7% with the cities of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg having already completed the change over. The US records a 15% rate of adoption and this year its government mandated a built-in DTV converter in all new sets sold. Therefore, one should consider these rates of adoption within the context of the geographic, demographic, economic, cultural, legislative, and political realities of each nation. The US spent the 1980s arguing about which format of DTV (the US, Japanese or French developed) to adopt. In Australia, the early debates and regulation were about who should get DTV (FTA broadcasters or others) and what they and others are allowed or not allowed to offer as services (eg. datacasting, multi-channelling, genres etc) (Weerakkody, 2002, 2003). Some European countries have used subsidies, user education and promotional strategies such as certified labels on products as ready for DTV conversion, to encourage adoption. Australia was unable to market the technology during the early stages due to the non-availability of converters for purchase in early 2001 and non-transmission in all areas until much later (Weerakkody, 2003). Anecdotal evidence from Australian DTV dealers also indicate that some users assume DTV will only be available after the analog cut off date. To others, DTV was about ‘large screens and better pictures for the rich’- especially before the price of widescreen Plasma TVs became more affordable. They are currently quite popular with younger, more affluent sports fans that purchase them for viewing live broadcasts. Diffusion of Innovations In contrast to the supply-side arguments, demand theorists postulate that most significant factors influencing diffusion are the services the new technology can provide and how much users are willing to pay for those services (Owen, 1999). Any new technology once adopted, generally goes through a slow rate of diffusion in the early stages based on the Normal Distribution or the Bell Curve, with only the innovators or 2.5% of the population taking it up. The early adopters or the next 13.5% of the population adopt it next and the rest will follow suit after a ‘wait and see’ period (Hawkins, Neal, Quester, & Best, 1994) hoping for the price to come down. Innovators and early adopters are generally younger, higher educated, and have higher disposable incomes. This means that as an emerging technology, DTV could be currently going through this stage in Australia as well as elsewhere. If the established base (analog TV) is satisfactory to users, they need additional incentives or an enhanced value or a relative advantage (Manross & Rice, 1986; Rogers, 1995) in terms of costs and performance, to be persuaded to adopt the new technology (Hawkins et al., 1994). Stephens (1998) illustrates how a ‘new’ technology when first introduced will generally be carrying out the same functions of the ‘old’ technology it was meant to replace. This fits with the reality that digital TV so far, as it mostly carries out the same functions and content as the existing analog TV, 708 Weerakkody which makes users question its value and discourage DTV adoption. Many users have adopted digital converters, mainly because they had problems with the transmission signals for the national broadcasters ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and/or SBS (Special Broadcasting Service), which can be corrected with a DTV set top converter. It is noted that Pay TV in Australia also went through a ‘slow’ adoption period since its inception in 1996 until the early 2000s. Pay TV was referred to as the ‘Fifth wheel’ (of a car) and redundant as users were well served by the five existing FTV channels, and thriving video and DVD services. Pay TV adoption improved after Foxtel digital was introduced with additional channels and services, and during promotional periods when its installation fee was either reduced or waived. Some argue that the Australian government should either subsidise the cost of the set top converters or provide them free to users, to encourage DTV adoption, and to meet the 2010 deadline. The 2008 Beijing Olympics are scheduled to be broadcast in DTV unlike Athens 2004 which was in analog. As a nation of sports lovers who will be able to view the Olympics broadcasts live in July 2008 at more convenient times of the day unlike with Athens 2004, due to Beijing being in the same geographic region and a similar time zone as Australia, early 2008 would be a good time for Australia to promote DTV adoption more aggressively. A New Technology- The Same Old Functions and Power Relations Even though we may see a technology as a mere ‘thing’, any new technology that is introduced into society is affected by its existing power relations and the conflicting agendas of the various interested parties and stakeholders. Any ‘new’ technology that is introduced will also be the domain of those who are powerful in society such as governments and large corporations and those who own the ‘old’ technologies (Green, 2001). For example, newspaper owner Sir Frank Packer won the first TV license in Australia and colour TV adoption in Australia was delayed due to his pressure on the government of the time; Pay TV in Australia (Foxtel) is jointly owned by the newspaper and magazine conglomerate News Limited owned by Rupert Murdoch; Newspapers, magazines and Channel 9 TV owning Publishing & Broadcasting Limited (PBL) belonging to the Packer family; and the telecommunications giant Telstra in Australia. Rupert Murdoch buying the Internet social site MySpace and Google’s purchase of YouTube further support this argument. Therefore, it was no surprise that the broadcasters in Australia lobbied heavily to gain a foothold into the new technology of digital TV as well. It is commonly argued that ‘old’ media take over or hold a stake in the ‘new’, in order to be able to manage or neutralise any competition they may face from the new technology (Place & Roberts, 2006). Why Don’t They Adopt? In discussing DTV non-adoption by users, Varan & Morrison (2003) found that the least willing to adopt DTV tend to be those who do not value TV as a medium or saw its capabilities as having a negative impact on society. Their survey also found that the postponement of the original deadline for the analog switch off from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008 was perceived as a lack of commitment from the government to convert fully to digital and affected consumer willingness to adopt DTV. If the deadline appears to be provisional instead of absolute, there will be fewer incentives for the users to adopt DTV. The authors suggest a digital only network for FTA television carrying Australian content as an incentive for users to adopt. However, due to the current low rate of adoption for DTV, such a channel can only expect low audience figures at least initially, which will lead to a competitive disadvantage to the licensee of the channel. Increased fragmentation of audiences by any new channels can then lead to further reduced funding for Australian content and children’s programming (Varan & Morrison, 2003, p. 42). 709 Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia Negative Media Coverage of DTV In early 2001, the newspapers of Fairfax and News Limited, carried a lot of coverage on the newly adopted digital TV reporting its adoption as ‘slow’ or a ‘failure’, which may have turned off many prospective adopters at the time. This negative reporting can be seen in the context of News Corp’s failed bid to be a part of digital TV, as it does not own a FTA TV station in Australia (Weerakkody & Tremblay, 2003). The set top boxes needed to upgrade to DTV were also not available in the shops by January 2001, due to problems with shipments, which was prominently reported by the same media organisations. Colour vs. Digital TV Some contrast the adoption of colour TV in Australia on 1 March 1976 to that of DTV where the former had a 54% adoption rate in Sydney and 48% in Melbourne within two years (ACNielsen, 1999) when a colour TV set cost A$2000 in 1998 terms (Given, 1998). By 1979 or 4 years after adoption, colour TV recorded a penetration rate of 82% for Sydney and 75% for Melbourne. However, one must consider that the change in the viewing experience for users moving from black and white to colour TV in 1976 far exceeds the change from today’s analog colour TV to digital (if the conversion is only to SDTV as an upgrade with a less expensive set top box) as a low relative advantage of DTV. Therefore, conversion to DTV would be less of a priority for users today (Weerakkody, 2003). What the Users Say The ‘Inquiry into the uptake up digital television in Australia’ by the House Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in 2005 had attracted a total of 96 submissions from various stakeholders. Of these, 49 were from individual members of the public whose submissions ranged from four handwritten sentences to 29 type-written pages (Parliament of Australia, 2005). In a content analysis of these 49 submissions, Weerakkody (2006) identified 5 main themes of opinions that were expressed. Using ‘pattern coding’ (Miles & Huberman, 1984), the opinions were examined as to how they were ‘framed’ by the composite of the 49 individuals who made the submissions. Framing of Discourses and Opinions Framing or the frameworks used in a discourse involve selection (of certain aspects) and salience (importance) of the aspects included in the discourse. Frames diagnose (identify the sources causing the problem), evaluate (make moral judgments about causal agents and their effects), prescribe (suggest remedies, offer and justify treatments) and predict (their likely effects) for an issue or subject under discussion (Entman, 1993; Gamson, 1992; Solomon, 1992). In simple terms, one can ‘frame’ a glass that contains water as ‘half full’ or ‘half empty’. Each discourse is shaped by the outlook of the person using the frame and in turn shapes how others are influenced to look at the situation (Dicken-Garcia, 1998). Framing is the basis of advertising, marketing and political as well as public relations messages and campaigns. Media messages are framed –either consciously or otherwise, by journalists and other creators of messages, in particular ways and carrying particular discourses. They tell us ‘what to think about and how to think about them’. In journalism, framing is linked to the ‘angle’ used in a news story and choosing a ‘lead’ for it. The lead controls how one tells the rest of the story and what headlines may be used (Dicken-Garcia, 1998). 710 Weerakkody The Themes of Opinions Expressed The six main themes of opinions on DTV adoption identified from the analysis of 49 submissions were: ‘Why consumers do not adopt digital TV?’;’What should be done to encourage digital TV adoption?’; ‘Problems faced when adopting digital TV’; ‘Advantages of adopting digital TV’; ‘Costs involved with adopting digital TV’; and ‘Other’ opinions. This paper will only discuss the first two which ahd significant numbers of opinions expressed on them. Each of the submissions often had several opiniosn expressed on each theme, which explains the higher than 49 number of opinions counted under each themes. The theme ‘Why consumers do not adopt digital TV?’ had 99 opinions expressed by the various individual submissions. When summarised, they could be categorised under the subthemes and framed as follows. Too few incentives: The cost of the digital set top box needed to upgrade to digital TV is not worth the better picture and wide screen provided by Digital TV as there is not much additonal content or programming available. Change from analog to digital is not as marked as in the move from black and white to colour TV. We do not care for surround sound or electronic program guides. Limited choice of equipment for purchase exists for sets with inbuilt set top boxes, or DVD recorders with digital tuners.There is confusion as to what to buy from the range of Flat, High Definition, Wide screen, Pay TV, Plasma, LCD, digital TV sets available; I am Happy with the existing system (Established base) and its reception and not interested in sports and movies. People get used to bad reception with analog and do not bother to improve it with Digital TV; Too expensive to upgrade as I cannot afford to upgrade. Will stay with the current set until time to replace it; Limited Promotion: Digital TV is not promoted by dealers such as Harvey Norman or Good Guys (two leading electronics goods retailers in Australia). Dealers (sales staff) not knowledgeable about the technology and therefore, are not actually selling it. Very little publicity is given overall to digital TV on free to air TV-especially in regional areas; Moving cut off dates is a disincentive: Changing from 2005 to 2008 was a disincentive to upgrade; Ageing population is not interested in upgrading; Multiple dwellings (apartment complexes) need to upgrade their relay systems to receive digital TV. Owners of buildings are not keen to invest. The main theme of ‘What should be done to encourage digital TV adoption’ had 101 opinions and consisted of the following subthemes. Lift restrictions on multicasting: Multi channelling or additional channels can cater to those not ‘sports mad’ with greater variety and interactivity; Provide tax and other incentives to manaufacturers and importers of equipment that suit the Australian standard; Require all local programming to be produced in wide screen format; Mandate built-in digital tuners to cut cost of buying one separately; Increase digital TV coverage and signal strength in all areas; Publicise the free to air digital TV service and the cut off date of analog TV more actively-especially in regional areas; Address issues related to multiple dwellings such as apartment blocks to receive digital TV signals; Examine the experiences of the UK in their early stges of digital TV adoption; Encourage development of high quality content (drama, documentries and education); Lift restrictions on datacasting and information services to free-to-air broadcasters; Ban sale of analog receivers without digital converters or set top boxes and subsidise low cost set top boxes; Address people’s motivations to embrace the technology and and take account of cultural and social factors as well as technology and economics, which are constrained by geography and history. Some of these suggestions are practical and could be addressed by specific stakeholder groups or industries. Others such as banning the sale of analog TV sets may not be so as it will require the government to risk a public reaction, especially via the ballot box. The proposal for mandatory built-in tuners in all new TV sets sold had been suggested arguing that, due to economies of scale, the increase in price per set caused by the tuner will be reduced to a level not negatively affecting low income earners. However, many vendors argue that a built -in tuner will restrict upgrading by 711 Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia the user when more sophisticated ones become available in the market, whereby the old tuner can be connected to a second or third TV set in the home. Digital Broadcasting Australia (ABA), an industry group, had provided dealers with promotional DVDs and brochures to be distributed to prospective buyers of set top converters but they were not available when the author visited the stores to gather information. Given that the price of a converter is relatively small in comparison to a large Plasma or other wide screen set, dealers would have little incentive to promote the sale of set top boxes separately for existing analog TV sets rather than sell one along with an expensive new wide screen TV and sell the converter along with it. The 49 members of the public also made submissions on DTV to the parliamentary inquiry appeared unaware that at the time, all news, current affairs, lifestyle, sport and drama programming were being produced and continue to be produced in the digital format by the FTV channels. Discussion These opinions provide useful preliminary insights but will not be generalisable as the submissions were from only 49 individuals with strong feelings about the issue drawn from 11 million TV households and a diversity of users. Individuals who bother to make public submissions are also very different from those who do not. The former will be more interested and knowledgeable about DTV than the average user of television in Australia. However, as the submissions were made in 2005-2006, their themes of opinions and frames will serve as points of reference for comparisons between those expressed at a later time between now and the new 2010/2012 deadline. The Australian Government’s Digital Action Plan In March, 2006, the Australian government proposed a Digital Action Plan titled Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age (2006), which carried several suggestions and measures to improve DTV adoption (Tanner, 2006, p. 11) taking into account that individual consumers in the free-to-air ‘horizontal market’, who will adopt the technology at their own pace and according to their own wishes. They could derail the 2010-2012 deadline for digital TV roll over as well, just as they have already done twice in the past, and therefore they may need some help, coaxing and guidance to do so, such as a well-designed public education campaign. Among the many suggestions listed in this Action Plan are: providing incentives to broadcasters, receiver manufacturers/importers and others to move to DTV; appropriate incentives and assistance to consumers to adopt DTV; formation of a dedicated new organisation to oversee and coordinate the activities related to the switchover; and designing a road map to guide the process and time frame for discontinuing the analog signal. The measures suggested for consideration by the discussion paper include publicity campaigns and targeted information for end users; community education about the technical and equipment needs such as antennas and systems for multiunit or multiple dwellings; exploring the provision of financial assistance to the disadvantaged groups in society and the elderly or the possibility of subsidisation of digital receivers; compulsory labelling requirements for analog equipment that indicate their limited range of functions after the digital switch over; the requirement for digital tuners in all or certain types of equipment and addressing the issues of technical standards, compliance of manufacturers and importers on Australian standards for digital receivers (Tanner, 2006, p. 11) 712 Weerakkody Conclusions and Future Directions The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the entity that is responsible for advising the government on the DTV switchover and related matters. It has recently proposed the use of the two new digital channels that will become available after the analog signal is discontinued, be allocated for mobile TV (on mobile phones), Pay TV, open narrowcasting TV and datacasting services (such as the Internet) to existing digital TV receivers. The government wants to allocate these two channels as soon as possible in 2007 (Tanner, 2006, pp. 11-12). Chapman (2006) sees these channels as part of the ‘new diversity mix in the digital broadcasting environment’ (p. 5). These suggestions strongly indicate the powerful position of certain stakeholders of the DTV debate and policy making. Unfortunately, the user and its interests still continue to take a lesser priority and appear to have a very minor role to play. However, Chapman (2006) sees ‘media literacy in general as one of the most complex issues arising out of the growth in information and communications technologies. The levels of access and use of technology vary widely across our society. Is it due to personal choice or a lack of education and information? or due to A broader question of infrastructure or due to the availability and affordability of services?’ (p. 8). This author sees it as an area for comprehensive, in-depth and scholarly examination for the near future and proposes a study examining the views of end users about DTV adoption via surveys; carry out focus groups with non-adopters with two or more working TVs at home (as they can be assumed as able to afford a basic digital converter) as to why they have not yet adopted and what would be an incentive for them to adopt; depth interviews with current adopters of DTV via converters or DTV sets, and via Pay TV digital services as to why they adopted DTV and what they like/dislike about it and what improvements they would like to see in the services in the future. These will be supplemented by interviews with members of other stakeholder groups such as broadcasters, digital Pay TV service providers, DTV equipment manufacturers, dealers (sales staff), academics, lobbyists, policymakers, regulators and legislators, to examine the various discourses and the framing of the opinions on the DTV debate within the context of the realities of current DTV adoption in Australia. Acknowledgements This paper is based on a research project supported by funding awarded by the Deakin University Central Research Grant Scheme (CRGS). The author wishes to thank Ms Jo Gulli of the Corporate Citizenship Research Unit (CCRU) at Deakin University for the valuable research assistance provided. References ACNielsen. (1999). Australian television: A ratings history 1956-1998. ACNielsen Australia. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2005). Digital media in Australian homes. Sydney: ACMA. Chapman, C. (2006). Breaking down the barriers. Speech 23 November as Chairman of ACMA, Information, Communication and Entertainment Conference. Canberra: Australian Communications and Media Authority. (p. 11). Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://www.acma.gov.au Coonan, H. (2006). Media: Unpacking the package. Speech, 4 August, Sydney. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from http://www.dcita.gov.au/newsroom2/speeches/media_unpacking_the_package Commonwealth of Australia. (2006a). The Report of the Australian Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communication, Information Technology and the Arts, 6 October 2006. Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. 713 Present and the Future of Digital TV in Australia Commonwealth of Australia. (2006b). Digital television: Who’s buying it? Inquiry into the Uptake of Digital TV in Australia. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Flew, T. (2005). New media: An introduction (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Fukuta, T. (1990). New electronic media and the human interface. Ergonomics, 33(6), 687-706. Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Given, J. (1998). The death of broadcasting? Media’s digital future. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Given, J. (2003). Turning off the television: Broadcasting’s uncertain future. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Given, J. (2007). The Digital Action Plan. Media International Australia-incorporating Culture and Policy, 122 (February), 16-18. Green, L. (2001). Technoculture: From alphabet to cybersex. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Hamelink, C. J. (1988). The technology gamble. Informatics and public policy: A study of technology choice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hawkins, D., Neal, C., Quester, P., & Best, R. (1994). Consumer behavior: Implications for marketing strategy. Sydney: Irwin. Jacka, E., & Turnbull, S. (2006). Australian television history: An introduction. Media International Australia-incorporating Culture & Policy, 121(November), 65-67. Lee, O., & Lee, I. (2006). Effects of reality on high definition TV viewing on the experience of presence. Unpublished manuscript, Kyung Hee Univeristy, Seoul, Korea. 22pp. Loncar, T., Fairbrother, P., & Dalziel, J. (2005). Digital media in Australian homes. Canberra: Australian Communication & Media Authority. Manross, G. G., & Rice, R. E. (1986). Don’t hang up: Organizational diffusion of the intelligent telephone. Information & Management, 10, 161-175. Meeting the Digital Challenge: Reforming Australian Media in the Digital Age. (2006, March). Discussion Paper on Media Reform Option. Canberra: Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA). Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Owen, B. (1999). The internet challenge to television. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parliament of Australia. (2005). Inquiry into the uptake of digital television in Australia. House Standing Committee on Communication, Information Technology and the Arts. Canberra: Parliament of Australia-House of Representatives. Place, N., & Roberts, M. (Eds). (2006). 50 years of television in Australia. Prahran, VIC: Hardy Grant Books. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Stephens, M. (1998). Which communications revolution is it anyway? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75 (Spring), 9-13. Stuart, A. (2006). Viewers in the director’s chair. The Age-Green Guide, October 19, p. 18. Take-up of digital TV accelerates (2007). ACMA Sphere, Issue 20, June, 10-11. Tanner, G. (2006). Television digitalization: Market trends and regulatory developments. Presentation June 13 by the General Manager of Inputs to Industry to the Australian Interactive Media Association, Fu- 714 Weerakkody ture of TV forum. Sydney. Canberra: Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA). Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://www.acma.gov.au Thomas, T. (2006). Australian TV 50 years on. Media International Australia-incorporating Culture & Policy, 121(November), 188- 198. Varan, D., & Morrison, T. (2003). Digital television in Australia: 2002 Industry survey. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Weerakkody, N. D. (2002). Digital TV: An Australian experience. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 21-24. Weerakkody, N. D. (2003). More dominant in their inactivity: Consumer response and the adoption of digital TV in Australia. Online and CD ROM Proceedings of the Informing Science and IT Education 2003 Conference (InSITE ’03), June 23-27, Pori, Finland. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/IS2003Proceedings/docs/129Weera.pdf Weerakkody, N. D. (2006). ‘Are we there yet?’ The adoption and diffusion of digital TV in Australia since January 1, 2001. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) Annual Conference, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5-7 August. Weerakkody, N. D., & Tremblay, W. (2003). A cross-impact analysis of the adoption and diffusion of digital TV in Australia and the USA. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA 2003), July 9-11, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.bgsb.qut.edu.au/conferences/ANZCA03/Proceedings/papers/Weerakkody_full.pdf Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. Biography Niranjala Weerakkody received a Ph D in Media and Communication from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and an MA in Communication & Mass Media from Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. She also holds a Postgraduate Diploma in International Affairs from the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS), Colombo 7, Sri Lanka and a Bachelor of Science degree majoring in Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics from the University of Sri Jayawardenapura, Sri Lanka. Her research and publications in the adoption and diffusion of new communication technologies include digital TV (Australia and the USA); biometric devices as identifiers (Australia, Malaysia and the USA); Webcasting (Australia); and mobile phones and children (Australia). She currently teaches media effects, organisational communication, and qualitative and quantitative research methods at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. 715