Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 May 1989

Vol. 390 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Television Distribution Systems.

Mr. R. Bruton

I would like to thank the Ceann Comhairle and also the Leas-Cheann Comhairle through his good offices for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue. Many of us on this side of the House have been more than a little unhappy with the way in which the Minister has approached the whole issue of an alternative distribution system for television. He took applications for MMDS licensing long before he specified regulations under which licences would be issued. We are told that he has at this stage already processed those applications. It seems very strange to be setting the rules of the race when the race is effectively over, which is what is involved here. He has also pushed ahead with this proposal for MMDS without any proper assessment. He promised here in the Estimate debate last year — and I have that debate in front of me — that he would provide a detailed assessment of the various points. He said he would put together a properly documented case answering the different points. The points raised at that time, sadly, were not answered in his subsequent PR book — which is really what it was — for the MMDS system. He did not look at the alternatives, which was the basic request of people on this side of the House.

He also took the powers to close down deflectors last December. Luckily we succeeded on this side of the House in getting him to change his mind and not go ahead with that proposal. It would effectively have meant that people in the west and south-west would have had no television options from channels other than the national RTE stations for the last six months and, prospectively, would not have them for the remaining six months.

Next Tuesday, the Rubicon will have been crossed by the Minister in so far as the 21 days will have elapsed for these regulations to come into place. There has not been any proper regard whatsoever for the rights of people living in rural areas to have choice in this respect. The Minister seems intent on going ahead without the proper public analysis of the issues. The system will be extraordinarily costly. Current estimates put it at £300 per household and it will be aimed at the whole of the non-urban cabled areas. That will work out at a cumulative cost to the public of around £200 million. If that were being undertaken by the State as a straightforward investment, we would have had reams of analyses of options. Department of Finance Circular 1/83 applied to this major investment proposal, but we have not had that, and the critical questions have been fudged by the Minister in the regulations that have been published and the whole lead up to this.

We still do not know what the MMDS will cost, whether the MMDS will guarantee service in remoter parts of the licensed areas or why there is any need for MMDS to be given a monopoly by banning the existing systems that provide service at a quarter of the cost in these areas. We still do not know what analysis the Minister did of an alternative, cheaper way of distributing the third channel he has available. The regulations gave absolutely no reassurance to the public on the critical questions of cost and availability. The regulations leave it to the operator to decide what charges he will make. Admittedly, the Minister takes unto himself the power at some later date to investigate those charges, but effectively the public are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in this area. They do not know at this stage the likely outlook on charges. The Minister is not taking unto himself the price control function he operates, for example, in relation to cable services. Instead it is the operators who are to decide the charges. There is considerable public controversy and debate about what level those charges will be at, but the Minister is not taking steps to reassure the public in this area.

Similarly, there is considerable concern about whether the licensees, the MMDS, will be able to serve the whole of their licensed territory. The Minister again does not take powers to ensure that the service will be available in the entire territory to be licensed. He has power to specify a percentage that should be covered, but he has not detailed any such percentage. The rumour that has been put about by some people, admittedly opponents of the system, is that it will achieve only 70 per cent cover. That would mean that very large tracts of territory and very large numbers of subscribers would be left without any alternative, even though they now have one. The public have a right to specific answers in this area before we are locked into the system the Minister is putting forward.

On the question of distributing a third channel, I am convinced that our allocation of international frequencies on the UHF network has ample capacity for the Minister to distribute the third channel on UHF. I do not think the Minister has given sufficient consideration to the option of adapting RTE's transmission system to distribute a third channel. It seems certain that would be immensely cheaper than a system potentially costing £200 million, namely the MMDS system, although, of course, it brings more than simply the third channel, but the Minister himself took the RTE option for the distribution of Centuary, the radio network. As the Minister knows, RTE's network took 25 years to achieve national cover. It would be much more sensible for RTE to distribute this channel rather than to put in place a whole new system, one we hope will not take 25 years to achieve national cover, but there is considerable uncertainty about its ability to get the sort of cover people deserve if they are to lose any alternative. The recent indication that the Government are considering UHF for Gaeltacht TV underlines the fact that there was an alternative for distributing the third channel which does not appear to have been properly explored.

As was pointed out to me, these are enabling regulations. The MMDS is not the only system that could be licensed by the Minister under this system. There is a very strong argument for the Minister looking at the possibility of licensing, not just MMDS, but UHF transmission systems as well. The Minister will recall that the cable system in use in the urban areas achieved its dominance under a system of competition and that was against opposition that was totally free in that people had off air service from their areas with no charge. All I am suggesting in regard to a system of dual licensing is that the MMDS would be competing with a service that is charging already. There seems to be ample justification for allowing a system of competition in this area. The Minister has advocated and has gone out of his way to promote competition in many other sections of the economy but he seems to have something of a blind spot here in that the MMDS, as is suggested, will now be established as a monopoly with no alternatives. If MMDS has the superior quality and service it is suggested it has, it can well face the competition and emerge victorious in the way the cable networks have done against competition. The Minister should look again at this. He will recall that it was he who insisted on the principle in cabled areas that no householder should have to pay for extra channels unless he had the option of opting out and not paying. In the rural areas the Minister seems to have turned that on its head and is saying to people there that householders will have to pay for the extra channels and not be given the option of not wanting those channels. It seems there is one rule for the urban dweller and a different one for the rural areas. The Minister would see the sense of this if the people concerned were in Swords and not in the west. It would be brought home to the Minister, as it has been brought home to many TDs, what the implication is of taking out a cheap and efficient system and replacing it with a dear and unproven one. Therefore, I ask the Minister to use these regulations to flexibly license alternative systems in competition. I ask him also to provide the public with information about the efficient alternatives. I do not feel that the booklet he produced, which is a PR effort, was the sort of economic analysis that would pass the Department of Finance's muster. We are talking about large scale investment here.

Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

At the outset I want to take the opportunity once again to assure the House and the general public that in relation to the systems at present in operation there will be no interference with the deflectors pending the MMDS network being in place. I do not want any suggestion that this debate will in some way bring about any action in relation to the illegal operators whereby these deflectors will remain in place.

I would like to start tonight by referring to a press release issued on 15 March 1987 by my predecessor, Deputy Jim Mitchell. In his statement Deputy Mitchell announced the adoption of MMDS in Ireland as the only feasible option to increase the range of television viewing in areas not served by cable, and went on to explain why UHF rebroadcasting could not be allowed. I would like to congratulate Deputy Mitchell on his foresight on this matter.

Ever since coming into power, this Government have been concerned with increasing the range of legitimate viewing in rural areas. After examining the issues this Government decided to adopt MMDS and I have moved with all speed to create the right legislative and regulatory environment for the establishment of the system. I intend to issue licences very shortly.

Now I am aware that the proposed introduction of this system has, in publicity terms at least, met with some degree of controversy. Let me address some of the points that have been raised.

First why go for MMDS as against the apparently cheaper illegal rebroadcasting systems which operate on UHF frequencies? There is a presumption in this question that we, as a country, have unfettered access to the complete UHF broadcasting spectrum. This, of course, is a fallacy. Use of the frequency is governed by international treaties and convention — all of which are necessary to ensure the co-existence of radio communications at international level. The fact is that we are entitled to use only certain frequencies from that spectrum — and then only at certain powers and in certain locations — sufficient in a green field situation of providing something approximating to four national networks at about 70-80 per cent penetration.

We are not, of course, in a green field situation. RTE already uses portions of the UHF spectrum both for main transmitters and transposers and will have the short, medium term and long term requirements for the future. Likewise, we are very much circumscribed with respect to UK television services, all of which operate on UHF frequencies. If we want to receive UK signals in this country we cannot use the frequencies they operate on if we are to avoid interfering with them.

Finally, we must always keep a quantum of UHF spectrum in reserve for future requirements. This is, after all, the only available spectrum for any future terrestrial television broadcasting needs in this country until at least well into the next century. For instance, if we did not go for MMDS the proposed new TV channel would eat up a significant amount of UHF spectrum. Let us suppose again that it is decided to have an Irish language television service. It will have to operate on the limited UHF spectrum. An immediate demand which will be made on this part of the spectrum is the provision of a studio to transmitter links for local radio stations. I have recently decided to allow local radio stations to operate such links and that the best place for them is the UHF broadcast band.

When all of these constraints are taken into account the amount of spectrum that is left to provide a nationwide — and I stress nationwide — retransmission system is not very significant and would not provide anything approaching the choice available on cable. It is clear that to allow the rebroadcasting of UK television signals in the UHF as opposed to MMDS is to condemn those areas which cannot be served by cable to a very limited choice of viewing for the foreseeable future.

An additional factor in this equation is that existing illegal rebroadcasting systems have been set up in an ad hoc unplanned fashion and do not constitute anything approaching a nationwide system. Their configuration is such that even if we wanted to we could not legalise them.

One other argument which has been put forward is that the increased use of satellite broadcasting will make a wide choice of viewing available to all at very little cost, thus making MMDS obsolete. This argument has no foundation in reality.

Those are the negative aspects of the matter. On the positive side, the Government have recognised that the demand represented by these illegal systems was legitimate. The public wanted choice. Accordingly they set about finding a means to respond to that demand and MMDS is the result. My philosophy in this matter is that the people in rural Ireland are entitled to the same number and range of channels as somebody living in the centre of Dublin.

Firstly, it operates on proven technology. The fact is that the technology has been in use since the sixties even if for another purpose — that is instructional television — and now carries the normal range of stations in the United States. It has, like all communications technologies, evolved and developed since then in terms of sophistication. Secondly, it operates in a part of the radio frequency spectrum which causes no difficulties either domestically or internationally. Thirdly, there is a reasonable quantum of spectrum available, sufficient to provide up to 11 channels per transmitter on a nationwide basis. And, as time goes by, it will be easier to augment this spectrum with additional channels.

Yes, there is a cost factor associated with this. The technology is more expensive than that in use in the illegal system, although this needs some qualification. First, if one is to judge by the equipment seized by the Department of Communications in their various raids, the kind of equipment in use on rebroadcasting systems would never be tolerated in a regulated environment. When this is added to the fact that in a regulated environment licence fees would be payable, as would taxes such as VAT — and I am making no judgments about whether illegal rebroadcasters are paying VAT — perhaps the price differential between UHF rebroadcasting and MMDS might not be as great as is sometimes claimed.

Secondly, the claimed differential between the cost of illegal systems and MMDS is somewhat of a myth. The comparisons that are made relate usually to the lowest cost illegal systems known — the £25 per annum voluntary subscription situation. First, my Department have accumulated data relating to the annual charges for illegal systems and I can assure you that many of those charges are considerably higher than £25 per annum. One must also ask how much have the subscribers paid in a capital charge for their conventional UHF aerial plus, where it applies, their decorder, and all this for an unpredictable three, or if lucky, four channels.

The other concern that is raised about MMDS is the extent of coverage it will give. Line of sight between transmitter and receiver is important at the frequencies MMDS operates on. One would think indeed that the same considerations did not apply at UHF frequencies. The fact is that great care has been taken in the frequency planning for MMDS to make maximum use of terrain to achieve maximum coverage. There will be shadow areas which the main transmitter in each cell will not cover, but in-fill transposers combined with the use of cable will take care of the majority of these.

Let us put it in the RTE context. It has taken RTE over 25 years to achieve 98 per cent coverage and they have been operating primarily in the VHF band which has better propagation characteristics than either UHF or MMDS.

I am aware that over recent weeks some of those seeking MMDS operating licences have been carrying out tests on MMDS equipment. Unfortunately due to pressure of work, I have not been able to attend any demonstrations or tests personally but the reports coming in are very encouraging indeed, with the transmission exceeding expectations in terms of quality of signal and reception at distances from the transmitter and, for the doubting Thomases among you, even when the reception antennae are located behind leafy trees and block walls. I am sure if any Deputies wish to see any demonstrations, this can be arranged.

Mr. Carey

I hope the Minister can arrange it for us.

Mr. R. Burke

The final negative element which has been raised about MMDS is the environmental/health concern. I would not for a moment contest the legitimacy of anyone to seek reassurance on an issue like this. However, I am quite certain that some persons who have tried to make an issue of this matter have done so on a "red herring" basis. I must say that to date I have not seen one such allegation which has had any substantial backing.

This is an area which has been carefully assessed by my Department. When the public in general hear references to "radiation" they immediately become concerned and think in terms of nuclear type or ionizing radiation. Radio frequency radiation is a form of non-ionising radiation. Other forms of non-ionising radiation include ordinary light and heat. It is entirely different from, and does not have the same mode of action or biological effects as, ionizing radiation.

There are international standards established with respect to safety limits of exposure to radio communication energy of all types. With respect to the limits which exist for MMDS frequencies, the fact of the matter is that the electromagnetic energy from the MMDS transmitters proposed under our plan will be significantly below the recommended safety limits so as not to be a matter of any concern.

The guidelines to which MMDS operators will have to adhere are laid down by the International Non-Ionising Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) in co-operation with the World Health Organisation, which in turn is funded by the United Nations. In establishing the guidelines the IRPA based their limits on scientific data and no consideration was given to economic impact or other nonscientific priorities. The IRPA also took into account that the general public may be unwilling to take any risks, however slight, associated with exposure to radio frequency radiation.

Finally, if there are still some sceptics about MMDS who are unwilling to accept that we have the competence here to reach a conclusion that MMDS will provide a reliable high quality retransmission service in this country, could I suggest that they obtain a copy of the consultancy study on MMDS, or MCDS as they call it, carried out by Touche Ross for the UK's Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 May 1989.