Steep Path of Digital Television Ecosystem
In an unusual move, the Communications and Information Ministry and the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission suddenly campaigned for the transformation of broadcasting services from analog to digital.
In an unusual move, the Communications and Information Ministry and the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission suddenly campaigned for the transformation of broadcasting services from analog to digital.
The issue, after being on the back burner, has regained momentum with the passage of the Job Creation Law, which includes stipulations on digital broadcasting. Long before that, the implementation of a digital system seemed to be off to a slow start. The transformation toward digital broadcasting — especially television — designed to create an “information super-highway”, had been slow going due to a number of government constraints.
In 2018, the government conducted digital television trials in 20 cities by cooperating with public broadcaster TVRI and 36 private broadcasting companies. From the get-go, the trial created pessimism about the migration from analog to digital television, because a planned revision of the broadcasting regulations had not been completed. Then came the Job Creation Law, which serves as a kind of oasis amid the uncertainty, and stakeholders then seemed to be full of enthusiasm and joy.
The Job Creation Law accommodates a policy that will see analog TV broadcasting "buried alive" by 2022 and introduce a total shift to digital broadcasting. On the one hand, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) and the Communications and Information Ministry campaigned intensely for digital broadcasting literacy, but on the other hand, the rules in the Job Creation Law pertaining to digitization are biased.
Thus, the Communications and Information Ministry\'s interference will give the government a dominant role.
The bias here is that digital TV is regulated by government regulations, not by law. Thus, the Communications and Information Ministry\'s interference will give the government a dominant role. Meanwhile, (the existence of the) KPI is guaranteed in the Broadcasting Law, the revision of which has yet to be completed. The KPI appears to be powerless and has no significant authority.
Even if the KPI is given authority to deal with content issues after its power is shackled through the Job Creation Law in the context of licensing and preparation of administrative sanctions, the number of resources needed, especially by the regional KPI (KPID), will be very large. Without proper coordination, the KPID will be paralyzed in the face of this ambitious government project.
Technical constraints
The government’s pretext is always that this is a forced move, because other countries have implemented it already. It appears to be an attempt to catch up with other countries, especially Southeast Asian countries that have implemented the Analog Switch Off (ASO) earlier, even though issues of finance and terrain are still very hard to resolve.
It must be acknowledged that digital broadcasting systems can transmit images with a resolution of 720 to 1,080 horizontal lines as compared to 480 lines in analog TV by offering disruption-free signals. On the other hand, there are complex technical problems. One of them is the issue of inadequate power supply in Indonesia.
The increase in the use of electricity for digital broadcasting will eventually increase operating costs a lot. If the government is not careful, it will create problems for itself. Technical requirements are also an obstacle, because the government will require large investment to train personnel in areas such as hardware installation and software configuration. However, if the government is already prepared, the technical problems may be resolved. If not, they will be a heavy burden because, even though the transition to digital formats is speeded up, it may remain unfinished.
The passion for transferring technology to the digital format actually seems cliché. When the foothold is Singapore, which launched digital television in 2004 and Malaysia, which has been experimenting since 1998, it is out of context, because the conditions in Indonesia are different.
In the past, over the top (OTT) services, such as video on demand on YouTube or other media were not familiar. Digital television is still perceived by some people as streaming broadcasts, which, however, they can easily access using the internet network. In fact, digital television is different. It is a type of television that uses digital modulation and compression systems to broadcast video, audio and data signals to television sets (Syaidah, 2013).
The perception of some of the public then creates a broader view of the broadcasting ecosystem. For them, digitization is not very significant, because they can access broadcasts via the OTT model on YouTube, Twitter and the like. This is because almost all broadcasters have accounts on these platforms.
Even if it (digital broadcasting) will offer more choices for viewers because digitization – if using multi mux – allows one frequency to broadcast six to eight television channels from only one on the analog system, considering the mushrooming of OTT video on demand services, how important is the role of digital broadcasting? What is the impact on our society?
The digitalization of print media is different, because it provides many colors, from paper to digital, which has changed work standards, costs, journalists\' competence and business on a large scale.
From the beginning, digitalization practices at a paradigmatic level have not made much difference. The digitalization of print media is different, because it provides many colors, from paper to digital, which has changed work standards, costs, journalists\' competence and business on a large scale.
Digitalization of television speaks of higher quality video and audio quality, with audio image quality that will be offered up to 1,080 vertical lines and 1,920 horizontal pixels (Bakare and Ekeocha, 2018). The fundamental point of change only rests on the issue of screen clarity and sound purity.
Even if there is a need for strict control because there is a large increase in the variety of content, with the current authority of the KPI and KPIDs, this clearly makes no sense, unless it was politically designed and directed toward conglomeration and monopoly capital, so that the basis for monitoring content, even broadcasting permits and sanctions, will feel lenient.
Total transformation
Digitalization on the one hand can offer many things. Some people believe it has the potential to spur economic, social and technological progress. However, this transformation still leaves a gap in the preferences for information technology awareness. Digitization is still concentrated in urban areas, while rural areas have limited capabilities.
Not to mention the financial issue to obtain a Set Top Box (STB). The government should help the poor by providing as many as 6.7 million free STBs. The middle class meanwhile will see the (STB) price as competitive and affordable.
Dealing with the technological issue of platform transformation is certainly easier than dealing with the transformation of broadcast content for people’s intelligence and skills. The first is about technical projects and the second is about ensuring that the public can obtain proper and correct information in accordance with human rights as mandated by Broadcasting Law Article 8 (3). The second issue is the responsibility of the KPI, especially the KPID.
The resource constraints among KPIDs throughout Indonesia is very concerning. They were struggling in facing issues related to the massive growth of internet-based television. In this transfer of technology, regulations that increase the KPID\'s authority and resources — whether through the revision of the Broadcasting Law or through bylaws or government regulations — need to be supported. This is because they are the ears and eyes or the front-line of broadcasting regulators that are the closest to the tendency of local people’s consumption of digital broadcast content.
Fathorrahman Hasbul, Researcher in Media and Political Communication; Alumnus of Master of Communication Science UGM