You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
I felt to comment on Mr Ahern's article on the definition of broadcasting on the internet, in the article at https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/alston-determination-defining-broadcasting-services-extended .
The article suggested that the regulation defining broadcast a broadcast excludes point-to-point communications as defined in the definitions section s6 "broadcasting service" subsection (b) of the Broadcast Services Act (Cth), http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s6.html. The article also included reference to subsection (c) can define or extend the meaning broadcastcasting because the current state of point-to-point communication does not require audio and video-on-demand services to adhere to standards required of broadcasters, for example Australian content.
Audio-on-demand and video-on-demand definitely fall into the exclusion of broadcast. But how does one apply or extend the definition to broadcasting to audio and/or video on demand? The current method of delivering IP streams from source to consumer is the client-server method of delivery. That means the content provider's servers have to make provision for handling many client-server relations.
For one-off ad-hoc transmission of video and/or audio streams, the process would definitely fall into the exclusion of the definition of broadcasting under s6 of the Act. BUT if there is a one-off event of audio and/or video streaming, the number of client-server relations are required. If the video and/or audio IP streams under a client-server model are delivered almost simultaneously, then it has the effect of broadcasting even though it does not fall legally into the definition of broadcasting under the Act or the Minister does not expand/define the definition under subsection (c) of the Act.
Given Mr Cridland's article on the 5G and the new technology of broadcasting streams instead of client-server relations, would fall under the Act because the content provider has "....equipment appropriate for receiving that service, whether the delivery uses the radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means or a combination of those means....."
It follows that if 5G can deliver content in a 'broadcast' method instead of a client-server relation, the content provider would have to abide by the regulation. For the traditional client-server model of content delivery, the definition of broadcast would need to be clarified by the Minister as to the timing of delivery of several client-server connections; how to define when the number and timing of client-server connections occur, whether the content is the same for all client-servers and the frequency of the offering of the particular video and/or audio stream. For the latter, the frequency of the offering of the particular video and/or audio stream could be a 'one-off' like a sporting match or other live coverage. For repeat transmission of content via a client-server connection, it is a repeat of the same content at a scheduled time. In other words, the content is scheduled rather than randomly accessed by the user in the case of video and/or audio on demand.
In sum, content providers under the 5G technology would come under the definition of broadcast while the Minister needs to clarify the definition of broadcast under s6 "broadcasting service" subsection (c) especially where video and/or audio on demand is scheduled at a particular time or times.
Thank you,
Anthony of exciting Belfield
Just back from IBC - where we heard about the high power German trial with 5G as a replacement for TV - and the low power trial in Scotland with 5G as a future replacement for DAB. I agree 5G broadcast is many years away as a consumer proposition. The question I have is this - do the network operators have as much power as they used to have over the feature set of mobile phones? Does anyone have any figures for the quantity of phones that are curently sold "sim free" or "dual sim" ? However I also agree there are many hurdles to getting compatible mobile phones built - it's not just the network operators who might wish to block this. Apple will presumably also be reluctant to add free to air TV/ radio to an iphone.
While what I said about the definition of broadcasting needs further clarification by the Minister under s6(c) of the Act still holds. I want to make it clear.
Reiterating that content provider providing for many client-server streams does not come under the definition of broadcast under the Act. The significance mentioned in Mr Ahern's article means that transmitting client-server streams does not have to adhere to broadcast standards.
I have not fully enumerated the definition of broadcasting. I mentioned that if there is a transmission of a particular event such as a sporting match, the effect of the content provider providing many client-servant streams at the same time is effectively a broadcast. Similarly, a content provider such as a radio or TV station transmitting audio and/or video content via a client-server IP stream at the same time as the broadcasting over the air is effectively a broadcast over the internet even though legally it is not broadcasting over the internet.
More discussion needed on what the Minister needs to extend the definition of broadcasting OR by a amendment to the legislation in order that content providers adhere to standards such as providing a certain percentage of Australian content.
I may have been unclear on ad-hoc transmissions of content over an IP stream using a client-server model. Under a "proposed" amended definition of broadcast, I would not include people or entities who like to podcast their audio and/or video content. Nor would it include Youtube or other social media content, unless it is a Australian content provider continuously transmitting audio and/or video and provides several server-client streams. A transmission from an overseas content provider cannot be required to adhere to Australian standards.
Consequently should internet-only radio or TV stations be legally defined as a broadcasting such as internet-only radio station new2uw, http://www.new2uw.com/ ? In addition should if server-client streams are the method of transmission of content, under the extended definition of broadcast under the Act, should the definition of broadcast be extended to include the number server-clients?
So, if an entity uses 5G broadcast technology, the entity is legally defined as a broadcaster. For server-client IP streams, either the definition extended or modified by the Minister or a legislative amendment may be required. Factors to consider are (i) the number of server-client streams, (ii) the simultaneous transmission of the IP stream with the 'broadcast', (iii) the continuity of the transmission of content without random access to programs, (iv) that audio and/or video podcasters who don't continually transmit be exempt from broadcasting.
While it is fine for Australian content providers it won't cover transmissions from outside Australia, broadcasting or IP streams.
Thank you,
Anthony from really exciting Belfield