Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge, etc?

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge, 9 & Win, 10 & Southern
Cross, etc?

I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain percent
of the population (I think it was something like 80%?). This has lead
to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural channels
with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.

I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform but never
seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything? Would removing the
limitation be a good thing?

[Ext User(William Walker)]

"Greg Alexander" <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1124145852.785412.311160@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge, 9 & Win, 10 & Southern
> Cross, etc?
>

That will never happen. Because 7 darwin and 7 central will be sold out if
southern cross 10 merged with 10. Remember 7 darwin and 7 central (now
named southern cross darwin and southern cross central) is owned by the same
owner as southern cross 10. The market at the present time is too complex
and complicated for mergers of the type mentioned above. to ever happen

> I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain percent
> of the population (I think it was something like 80%?). This has lead
> to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural channels
> with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.

A regional station can cover up to 75% of the nation's populations.

>
> I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform but never
> seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything? Would removing the
> limitation be a good thing?
>

No. Because the city and regional markets are designed to be different and
they will never be designed to be the same as one other.

Actually it could lead to more local news closures despite the condition
that local stations do provide news, but under the review if the government
allows 9 and win to merge, 7 and prime to merge it could scrap the
conditions and allow them to close more local news bulletins.

William Walker

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote

> Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge,
> 9 & Win, 10 & Southern Cross, etc?

Impossible to say yet given that the govt hasnt announced the detail yet.

> I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain
> percent of the population (I think it was something like 80%?).

No there isnt. And its just plain wrong with the ABC and SBS.

> This has lead to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural
> channels with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.

That came about for other regulatory reasons.

> I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform
> but never seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything?
> Would removing the limitation be a good thing?

There is no such limitation.

Harder to say if it would be a 'good thing' if the national networks
were allowed to take over Prime, Win and Southern Cross. The
most obvious downside would be the inevitable loss of local news
and it would make advertising more complicated if you want local
advertising to be viable outside the capital citys.

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

William Walker wrote:
> "Greg Alexander" <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain percent
> > of the population (I think it was something like 80%?). This has lead
> > to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural channels
> > with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.
>
> A regional station can cover up to 75% of the nation's populations.

Thanks. 75% eh.

> > Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge, 9 & Win, 10 & Southern
> > Cross, etc?
>
> That will never happen. Because 7 darwin and 7 central will be sold out if
> southern cross 10 merged with 10. <snipped etc>

It sounds like you're saying it won't happen due to commercial
constraints and other complications, which is a separate issue to
7/prime mergers etc. For instance, didn't Prime recently but a share in
10?

> > I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform but never
> > seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything? Would removing the
> > limitation be a good thing?
> >
>
> No. Because the city and regional markets are designed to be different and
> they will never be designed to be the same as one other.

I think the city and regional markets are actually different, rather
than designed to be different.

> Actually it could lead to more local news closures despite the condition
> that local stations do provide news, but under the review if the government
> allows 9 and win to merge, 7 and prime to merge it could scrap the
> conditions and allow them to close more local news bulletins.

I agree that if they merged there could be several closures that favour
the cities and hurt the regionals. Already though the local news is
kept because it is a condition set by the government, so that's less
likely to change.

Anyway... I was mainly just wondering if the government was going to
keep enforcing the 75% situation or whether it'd let that one go.

Greg

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

Rod Speed wrote:
> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>
> > Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge,
> > 9 & Win, 10 & Southern Cross, etc?
>
> Impossible to say yet given that the govt hasnt announced the detail yet.

I know, I just hadn't heard any rumours on this aspect.

> > I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain
> > percent of the population (I think it was something like 80%?).
>
> No there isnt.

Yes there is Rod.
http://www.aba.gov.au/owncontrol/limitations/control_requirements/licence_area.shtml

> And its just plain wrong with the ABC and SBS.

It's only a commercial TV restriction.

> > This has lead to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural
> > channels with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.
>
> That came about for other regulatory reasons.

Were there other reasons other than the link I gave?
If so what?

> > I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform
> > but never seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything?
> > Would removing the limitation be a good thing?
>
> There is no such limitation.
>
> Harder to say if it would be a 'good thing' if the national networks
> were allowed to take over Prime, Win and Southern Cross. The
> most obvious downside would be the inevitable loss of local news
> and it would make advertising more complicated if you want local
> advertising to be viable outside the capital citys.

I think there's value in keeping them separate, though I like to see
multiple companies competing in general.

I found another link of interest, showing the current ownership of
media companies (this was made for the 2000 media reform package that
fell through afaik).
Check out near the bottom (search for "Effect of the repeal")
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm

It shows that Sydney (for instance) has 11 media owners, and regulation
only requires 9. Under the rumoured media reform, mergers are allowed
but cities must retain 5 major media players - I wonder if that is
calculated the same way.

[Ext User(William Walker)]

"Greg Alexander" <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1124244044.308400.71550@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>
> William Walker wrote:
>> "Greg Alexander" <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain percent
>> > of the population (I think it was something like 80%?). This has lead
>> > to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different regional/rural channels
>> > with different owners but affiliated to each city channel.
>>
>> A regional station can cover up to 75% of the nation's populations.
>
> Thanks. 75% eh.
>
>> > Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge, 9 & Win, 10 & Southern
>> > Cross, etc?
>>
>> That will never happen. Because 7 darwin and 7 central will be sold out
>> if
>> southern cross 10 merged with 10. <snipped etc>
>
> It sounds like you're saying it won't happen due to commercial
> constraints and other complications, which is a separate issue to
> 7/prime mergers etc. For instance, didn't Prime recently but a share in
> 10?

Hmm I think it was WIN, not sure, I recall reading somewhere that the WIN
chairman, bought shares in Ten. A really silly move made by WIN. It would
only cause more confusion and uproar by the TV viewers because it could lead
to more local news closures or that southern cross may have no option but to
reopen local news bulletins in Townsville, Bendigo and Lismore and Canberra
due to the conditions put in by the federal government.

Personally given Southern Cross present attitude, it could decide to sell
Southern Cross Ten stations to NBN, and NBN will have to invest heavily in
the local news bulletins in Townsville, Bendigo and Lismore and Canberra and
digitalise them to be in the same standard as Newscastle and Gold Coast. I
am unsure if the viewers would react warmly to a proposal like that. I
really don't know what the future holds, but I think WIN have made a foolish
decision to invest shares in Ten.

I am under the impression that the regional and rural viewers would prefer
the pre-aggregation days because localism was more common in those days and
given the attitude by Prime and Southern Cross who closed the majority of
the local news bulletin, I don't think the viewers in rural and regional
areas really don't care who owns the television stations because they are
all in the same boat, and do not trust them given their capability in 2001
to close news bulletins and they are afriad that a future government could
axe the condition to force them to deliever local news resulting in more
local news bulletin closures.

Such a proposal by the WIN chairman to merge with or buy Ten is simply
unworkable. There's too much confusion and the viewers already have to put
up with local news bulletin closures. And like you said the present market
is complicated enough as it is now to add confusion to the viewers made by
WIN's future actions.

Prime and other stations such as NBN did not put in shares in Ten as far as
i am aware.

William Walker

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote

>>> Will media reform mean 7 & Prime could merge,
>>> 9 & Win, 10 & Southern Cross, etc?

>> Impossible to say yet given that the
>> govt hasnt announced the detail yet.

> I know, I just hadn't heard any rumours on this aspect.

Rumours are useless on something like that.

>>> I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain
>>> percent of the population (I think it was something like 80%?).

>> No there isnt.

> Yes there is Rod.

Nope.

> http://www.aba.gov.au/owncontrol/limitations/control_requirements/licence_area.shtml

Nothing like your original.

>> And its just plain wrong with the ABC and SBS.

> It's only a commercial TV restriction.

And your original is nothing like what is actually proscribed.

>>> This has lead to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different
>>> regional/rural channels with different owners but affiliated to
>>> each city channel.

>> That came about for other regulatory reasons.

> Were there other reasons other than the link I gave?

Yep.

> If so what?

Most obviously the contraint on ownership of more
than one channel in a particular viewing area.

>>> I've read the various rumours of Helen Coonan's media reform
>>> but never seen this aspect mentioned. Anyone heard anything?
>>> Would removing the limitation be a good thing?

>> There is no such limitation.

>> Harder to say if it would be a 'good thing' if the national networks
>> were allowed to take over Prime, Win and Southern Cross. The
>> most obvious downside would be the inevitable loss of local news
>> and it would make advertising more complicated if you want local
>> advertising to be viable outside the capital citys.

> I think there's value in keeping them separate, though
> I like to see multiple companies competing in general.

I think it makes a lot more sense to have
a number of national networks instead.

In other words the 75% rule makes no sense at all.

> I found another link of interest, showing the current
> ownership of media companies (this was made for
> the 2000 media reform package that fell through afaik).

> Check out near the bottom (search for "Effect of the repeal")
> http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm

> It shows that Sydney (for instance) has 11
> media owners, and regulation only requires 9.

I think its completely mad to be specifying 9.

> Under the rumoured media reform, mergers are
> allowed but cities must retain 5 major media players

And that is mad too, specifying a number like that.

> - I wonder if that is calculated the same way.

Nope.

[Ext User(Andrew Bayley)]

> Personally given Southern Cross present attitude, it could decide to sell
> Southern Cross Ten stations to NBN, and NBN will have to invest heavily in
> the local news bulletins in Townsville, Bendigo and Lismore and Canberra
> and digitalise them to be in the same standard as Newscastle and Gold
> Coast. I am unsure if the viewers would react warmly to a proposal like
> that. I really don't know what the future holds, but I think WIN have
> made a foolish decision to invest shares in Ten.

Ten is the most profitable of the three capital city networks, WIN obviously
want a slice of that profit. Just because WIN has bought shares in TEN does
not mean they intend turning their whole business around into a TEN
affiliation or going into any partnership or merger with TEN although I know
it was suggested but I can't see it happening. In any case I think they
only own 7 or 8 per cent of TEN so it's still only a minority shareholding.

> I am under the impression that the regional and rural viewers would prefer
> the pre-aggregation days because localism was more common in those days

i'm not sure if the *majority* would prefer the old days as such...
certainly there is support for localism but i think the general feeling is
that viewers are largely happier with the extra choice.. back in the
pre-aggregation days viewers were forever moaning about missing out on
programs and sporting events, or seeing shows months after they had been
shown in the cities - all of which being inevitable when there is only one
commercial channel in town with no clear affiliation to any capital city
network. Perhaps Multichannelling, which the regional stations proposed as
an alternative to aggregation, would have been a better way to go -
essentially giving viewers more choice and maintaining a local presence -
but the authorities pushed on with aggregation and Multichannelling only
became an option in areas like regional SA and Griffith NSW, and to a lesser
extent in Tasmania with a digital-only 3rd commercial channel.

[Ext User(Greg Alexander)]

Rod Speed wrote:
> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> >>> I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain
> >>> percent of the population (I think it was something like 80%?).
>
> >> No there isnt.
>
> > Yes there is Rod.
>
> Nope.
>
> > http://www.aba.gov.au/owncontrol/limitations/control_requirements/licence_area.shtml
>
> Nothing like your original.

Apart from audience reach being restricted to 75%, how is it different?

> >>> This has lead to us having 3 city channels, and 3 different
> >>> regional/rural channels with different owners but affiliated to
> >>> each city channel.
>
> >> That came about for other regulatory reasons.
>
> > Were there other reasons other than the link I gave?
> > If so what?
>
> Most obviously the contraint on ownership of more
> than one channel in a particular viewing area.

That doesn't stop 7 & Prime from merging.
It stops 7 & 9 from merging, or Prime & WIN.

> > I think there's value in keeping them separate, though
> > I like to see multiple companies competing in general.
>
> I think it makes a lot more sense to have
> a number of national networks instead.
>
> In other words the 75% rule makes no sense at all.

I agree the 75% rule makes no sense.
I do see value in having several competiting media companies.

> > http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm
> > shows that Sydney (for instance) has 11 media owners, and
> > regulation only requires 9.
>
> I think its completely mad to be specifying 9.
>
> > Under the rumoured media reform, mergers are
> > allowed but cities must retain 5 major media players
>
> And that is mad too, specifying a number like that.

It sounds as if you'd prefer companies to buy each other out until
there's only a few. Is that what you'd prefer?

> > - I wonder if that is calculated the same way.
>
> Nope.

Okay, I note that you are not saying "I don't know"...
How is the number of media owners in a market calculated by Helen
Coonan?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Greg Alexander <galexand@ozemail.com.au> wrote

>>>>> I know there's a rule that a channel can only reach a certain
>>>>> percent of the population (I think it was something like 80%?).

>>>> No there isnt.

>>> Yes there is Rod.

>> Nope.

>>> http://www.aba.gov.au/owncontrol/limitations/control_requirements/licence_area.shtml

>> Nothing like your original.

> Apart from audience reach being restricted to 75%, how is it different?

Yours left out the crucial bit about commercial channels.

>>>>> This has lead to us having 3 city channels, and
>>>>> 3 different regional/rural channels with different
>>>>> owners but affiliated to each city channel.

>>>> That came about for other regulatory reasons.

>>> Were there other reasons other than the link I gave?
>>> If so what?

>> Most obviously the contraint on ownership of more
>> than one channel in a particular viewing area.

> That doesn't stop 7 & Prime from merging.
> It stops 7 & 9 from merging, or Prime & WIN.

I wasnt commenting on merging there, just
on your original mangling of the real story.

>>> I think there's value in keeping them separate, though
>>> I like to see multiple companies competing in general.

>> I think it makes a lot more sense to have
>> a number of national networks instead.

>> In other words the 75% rule makes no sense at all.

> I agree the 75% rule makes no sense.
> I do see value in having several competiting media companies.

Sure, but that doesnt have to be done with media law, its adequately
covered by the other law on dominance of any market.

And the 'cross media' laws are terminally stupid too.

>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm
>>> shows that Sydney (for instance) has 11 media owners, and
>>> regulation only requires 9.

>> I think its completely mad to be specifying 9.

>>> Under the rumoured media reform, mergers are
>>> allowed but cities must retain 5 major media players

>> And that is mad too, specifying a number like that.

> It sounds as if you'd prefer companies to
> buy each other out until there's only a few.

Nope.

> Is that what you'd prefer?

Nope.

>>> - I wonder if that is calculated the same way.

>> Nope.

> Okay, I note that you are not saying "I don't know"...

> How is the number of media owners in
> a market calculated by Helen Coonan?

We dont know yet, she hasnt said.

We dont even know what the govt plans
to do on the 'cross media' stuff either yet.

I doubt the govt knows itself yet.