T

he government'€™s plan to carry out total migration in 2018 from the analog television broadcasting system to the digital system has, from the beginning, induced juridical controversy. Media business practitioners and agents consider Law No. 32/2002 on broadcasting incapable of responding to the rapid advance of communication technology, let alone resolving the problem of broadcasting infrastructure reform.

The controversy has sparked a legal dispute between the government and media business circles, resulting in the decision of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) that canceled licenses for 33 companies winning multiplexing tenders. The PTUN last week granted the lawsuit filed by the Association of Network Television (ATVJI) against a decree signed by the Communications and Information Minister on the realization of digital television.

In this way, the entire digital TV broadcasting activity is prohibited following the court verdict. Previously, the minister, through Regulation No. 22/2011 on free-to-air terrestrial digital television broadcasting, appointed 33 companies as multiplexing agents in the country.

The Broadcasting Law has considerably contributed to the legal battle over implementation of the digital broadcasting system. The law completely steers clear of the substance of the digital broadcasting system in Indonesia. Consequently, the government'€™s plan to adapt to the global trend of digital broadcasting media has lost a legal basis.

The court ruling has, therefore , created uncertainty for the broadcasting industry. Several media companies has capitalized on the legal loophole to delay the digitalized system of broadcasting for business reasons, such as a huge investment in building digital TV infrastructure. Digital broadcasting is thus short of support from the media business sector.

For almost a decade, through Minister Regulation No. 7/2007 on terrestrial digital television broadcasting standards and regulation No. 5/2012, the government has strived to implement the digital television system.

However, Minister Regulation No. 22/2011 in many respects runs counter to the broadcasting law and the telecommunications law. For instance, the government abandoned the role of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), ignored the aspect of justice for local players and left restructuring to tender winners from the private sector.

The control of digital networks by the private sector violates the broadcasting law and even the Constitution. As limited and rare resources, frequencies should be controlled by the state and utilized for the maximum prosperity of the population.

Therefore, different parties filed a judicial review against the ministerial regulation with the Supreme Court (MA), which annulled it on April 3, 2013. After the MA'€™s ruling, the public hoped the government would revise substantial matters that could lead to legal flaws. Instead of encouraging a revision of the broadcasting law in the House, the ministry issued a substitute with the same content, Regulation No. 32/2013. The government deemed the regulation in no conflict with the MA'€™s verdict and all the tenders already organized and won by national broadcasting industries legitimate and valid, because the MA'€™s decision was not retroactive, until finally it was canceled by the PTUN.

So is the PTUN decision good news for the public? This depends on the government'€™s further moves.

Most important is how the broadcasting media utilize frequencies in a responsible manner for the public good. In multiplexing management, for instance, digital-channel distribution should be managed by parties outside media conglomerations.

The government is also urged to reorder the distribution of frequencies that have since the New Order period been allotted to cronies and transacted with broadcasting industrial investors. The public wants the government to better guarantee the promotion of broadcasting content that is more creative and beneficial for society, public broadcasting agencies, local broadcasting institutes and community broadcasting bodies, instead of merely leaving digital channel management to the market mechanism.

All rules should be directed toward the formation of local broadcasting players without perpetuating the concentration of ownership in a handful of entrepreneurs, for the sheer reason of capital and infrastructure availability.

To this end, the government should start again the tender process of companies to be awarded digital channels instead of appealing the PTUN'€™s decision. Otherwise, the government will just maintain oligopoly and oligarchy in the digital broadcasting industry and further remove the spirit of diversity in content and ownership.

The government should distribute digital channels on the basis of track records of public frequency license holders in the analog era. Broadcasting companies that often used public frequencies for personal or group interests don'€™t deserve the mandate to manage the public domain in the digital broadcasting era.

The public has no interest in the government'€™s attempt to push for migration of the analog to the digital system as Indonesia doesn'€™t belong to the world zone bound by the agreement of the International Telecommunications Union. The government need not rush to broadcasting-digitalization while the legal aspect is lacking.

Thus the government should seek to immediately revise the Broadcasting Law by including provisions concerning the digital broadcasting system and strengthening the KPI'€™s authority to perform its regulatory function. The amendment is also urgently needed to affirm diversity of content and ownership and to improve institutions of supervision and public protection.

So although the PTUN'€™s decision was inseparable from the business competition between media industrial players and certain groups of entrepreneurs, the government can still utilize this momentum to defend the public interest.