Channel 3 debacle for dummies (by a dummy)

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.