Jim O'Keeffe
Question:18 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he will introduce legislation to enable community TV to be licensed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Television Services.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:24 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications his views on the case for competition in the provision of TV services throughout the country.
Question:
27 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will give the position regarding the legalising of multi-channel television deflector systems; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 24, and 27 together.
I have dealt with the issue of legalising deflector or community television systems on a number of occasions in this House as have my predecessors.
Government policy in regard to multi-channel choice for many years now is that the best means of bringing such choice to the non-cabled public is through properly licenced multipoint microwave distribution systems, or MMDS. Let me stress that there are no plans to review Government policy on this issue. I would therefore like to take this opportunity, as I did in this House last Wednesday, to make it as clear as I can that the MMDS system is here to stay and that no other re-transmission system can, or will, be licensed.
The basic problem with deflector systems is that they operate in a part of the UHF band which has been allocated to Ireland for television use by the Stockholm Treaty of 1961.
There is simply not enough frequency space available under this allocation to enable a nationwide network of deflector transmitters to be established and at the same time meet other national requirements such as RTE's two channels, a possible independent "third" channel and the proposed Teilifís na Gaeilge. Those calling for the licensing of illegal deflector systems are in effect asking me to close off options for the future development of domestic television services in this country.
With regard to the question of competition, as I said earlier, there is simply no alternative to MMDS in non-cabled areas. The question of allowing more than one MMDS or cable operator in any particular area was examined at the time the licensing regimes were being drawn up, but was not considered practical, mainly for economic reasons. In addition, there is simply not enough frequency space available to allow two or more MMDS operators in a franchise area to carry the full range of available channels. In the case of cable, heavy capital outlay militates against competing systems; neither does it make sense to have duplicated cabling in any one area.
Will the Minister accept that many experts claim that it is technically feasible and practical, in accordance with international regulations, to licence community television services in the UHF band? If it has been Government policy for many years solely to licence MMDS systems, why did the Minister's predecessors say clearly last year — admittedly prior to an election but I would expect the same words to be spoken after an election — that there would be an examination of the role of deflector systems in the provision of multi-channel services? In relation to the competition factor, where the Minister believes there is no future for the deflector system why did his party spokes-person, the then Minister for Communications, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, promise that there would be an arrangement for the examination of the monopoly position of MMDS operations?
Brevity, please. The time for questions is nearly exhausted.
Why were all those promises made last November and why is the Minister now taking the hardline attitude that deflector systems are not acceptable? What is acceptable on the east coast is not acceptable on the west coast.
If Deputy O'Keeffe knows of experts who believe we can use deflector systems on the ultra high frequency bands available, they do not know of the availability of such bands to Ireland under the Stockholm Treaty. They are not aware of the position. In relation to the examination of the role of deflector systems, I outlined in my reply the precise position in clear and unambiguous terms. Those calling for the licensing of illegal deflector systems are in effect asking this Government to close off options for the future development of domestic television services so as to facilitate non-domestic television channels through the MMDS. It is a higher quality product and a greater range of channels can be facilitated. Any re-examination of that role has concluded that there can be no change in the position. In relation to competition, I do not wish to pre-empt the result of an examination by the Department of Enterprise and Employment but it is suffice to say that the question of legalising deflector operations does not arise for the reasons I have already given.
Would the Minister accept——
I am calling Deputy McGinley for a final supplementary.
I wish to ask two questions.
Is the Minister aware that there are people in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies who are depending on the deflector system to receive RTE 1 and Network 2? If deflectors are to be discontinued will the Minister give a guarantee that these people will receive signals from the MMDS system?
It will be our objective to ensure that the service is available to people in the Deputy's constituency who are depending on that system for RTE 1 and Network 2. The MMDS system can supply those signals. I will make available to the Deputy the necessary information on the points raised.
The time for ordinary questions is exhausted.
Have we time for one brief supplementary question?
I am sorry Deputy, I have to move on to Private Notice Questions regarding the postal strike in Cork. Two questions have been allowed and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications proposes to reply to both questions together.