NationStates Jolt Archive

ON DRAFT:
Public Access Television Service (PATS)

Current Draft is as follows:

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Free Press

Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

WHEREAS the Television is a major source of information, education, and entertainment, and;

WHEREAS the Television is often relied upon by the less well-off, or by the many;

CONCERNED:
- That some member nations do not have a Public Access Television Service that is accessible or reliable, or worse;
- That the existing Public Television Service of a member nation may be unregulated, biased, and deemed inappropriate for all audiences.

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that a Public Access Television plays a major role in the development of knowledge and education of the people of all ages; but it may be effective only if it is appropriately regulated by independent and unbiased bodies;

1. DEFINES the Licence Fee be a permit for each household or premises to receive television transmissions from all broadcasters;

2a. MANDATES:
a) That member nations establish at least one Public Access Television Service, independent of government control, in which its role shall be:
- To entertain, inform, and educate without political, racial, cultural, or religious bias;
- To manage the fiscal budget independently without threatening the quality of transmissions;
- To hold responsibility for the quality and appropriateness of broadcasts for the audience, and to respect the views and opinions the audience may provide;
- To promote the values of the country and culture, engage in current events, and;
- To engage in creativity and promote the advancement of the technology of the Television.
b) That a Public Access Television Service may be funded by any source of income, so long as it supports the work of the Public Broadcaster(s) without exploitation of a vulnerable audience;
c) That a Public Access Television Service shall limit the amount of third-party advertising to a period lasting up to five minutes in every thirty minutes of transmission, and to prohibit at all costs, subliminal advertising and messages that may exploit a vulnerable audience.

2b. MANDATES, but ONLY in the event that a government decides to enforce the License Fee in order to fund the Public Access Television Service:
a) That the License Fee shall not exceed one hundred and fifty times the cost of one loaf of bread, national currency;
b) That the government who implements the License Fee initiate a waiver or concession for people of old age, who are unemployed, with disability, or a combination of both.

3. EMPHASIZES that this resolution does not prohibit broadcasts from any commercial or private television companies that may operate in a member nation.

ENCOURAGES member nations to implement the rules laid by this Resolution, alongside their own broadcasting systems, or to strengthen the values of an existing Public Access Television Service, and finally;

ENCOURAGING member nations to provide an established, unbiased, and regulated Public Access Television Service; without any third-party advertising, if it is possible.


Explanatory notes:

This resolution promotes and render at least Public Television service compulsory, which shall be created with the purpose to entertain, inform, and educate the audience without political, racial, cultural, or religious bias; and be independent of government control; and to be responsible for the quality, content and appropriateness of its programs.

This resolution shall control, if the government chooses to implement the license fee, restrict the maximum fee to, and mandate concessions and waivers to people of old age, who are unemployed, with disability, or a combination of both.

OOC: not that this looks suspiciously like the BBC's directives or anything...

IC: Congratulations, you both MANDATE and ENCOURAGE everyone to provide a PATS. That should confuse the NatSov twonks into passing it.

Let's see; it's fluffy, its prologue has more holes than a sieve, and its pro-education. The ambassador will love it, apart from the advertising.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Is this really important enough to be proposed already?

I dislike this proposal. While you're at it, you may as well demand that every government must provide internet access, must provide newspapers, and must provide radio. In fact, some nations may be so poor as to not have televisions, or perhaps some nation just doesn't like them. Moreover, government intrusion into a business in those nations where television does exist would not be a good idea at all. Certainly, you would agree that it is not the government's role to "entertain" nor to "promote values." Below, I will indicate what is disagreeable about this proposal other than what I have already stated.


WHEREAS the Television is a major source of information, education, and entertainment, and;
Television may not necessarily be a major source of <>. I would suggest "television may be" or "has the potential to be."

WHEREAS the Television is often relied upon by the less well-off, or by the many;
Relied upon--for what?

1. DEFINES the Licence Fee be a permit for each household or premises to receive television transmissions from all broadcasters;
"As" not "be."

2a. MANDATES:
a) That member nations establish at least one Public Access Television Service, independent of government control, in which its role shall be:
- To entertain, inform, and educate without political, racial, cultural, or religious bias;
I fail to see how one might educate and inform without any type of bias. Every person has values and their values are reflected in their words and their work. If you ask someone to tell you something, they will inevitable tell it to you from their perspective, as they have none other...
Also, how do you propose the service be funded? By government money? I certainly hope not, as you wish it to be independent of government control. The more I read this proposal, the more it seems like you want the government to set up a television company, then regulate it very closely, oh but it must be independent of government control.

- To manage the fiscal budget independently without threatening the quality of transmissions;
So it is ok to fail to manage the fiscal budget if manging the budget would threaten the quality of transmission?

- To hold responsibility for the quality and appropriateness of broadcasts for the audience, and to respect the views and opinions the audience may provide;
So you either want the service to broadcast a blank screen or to be open to an indefinite amount of lawsuits and people claim that the service is not respecting their views and opinions. Seems like you're trying to please everybody...or be sued. That seems unlikely to work.

- To promote the values of the country and culture, engage in current events, and;
You want the service to promote values...but you don't want it to be biased? How odd.

- To engage in creativity and promote the advancement of the technology of the Television.
I fail to see how the service can engage in creativity.

b) That a Public Access Television Service may be funded by any source of income, so long as it supports the work of the Public Broadcaster(s) without exploitation of a vulnerable audience;
In other words, you do not know where the service would and should be receiving funding from and you do not care.

c) That a Public Access Television Service shall limit the amount of third-party advertising to a period lasting up to five minutes in every thirty minutes of transmission, and to prohibit at all costs, subliminal advertising and messages that may exploit a vulnerable audience.
Prohibit subliminal advertising? You may as well ban advertising altogether. Also, you wish to dictate just how long advertising may be? Your nation must be one of those dictatorships where one person controls the most minute aspects of each persons' lives.

This proposal is poorly written. It both mandates and encourages nations to carry out actions. Also, in nations where television is an active business, it would be a poor choice for government to muscle in with a company. Moreover, the company is regulated to the most minute aspects and, strangled by these regulations, will not survive the competition of other companies. Eventually, the service will essentially fail, only hanging on because the government must fund it, despite no one using it, because this proposal would mandate that one must exist, ignoring whether or not it functions. The source of funding is ambiguous, and with advertising limited, funding would become even more difficult to find. Of course, there may very well be no advertising at all, since subliminal advertising is banned. Lastly, the proposal is contradictory, demanding unbiased entertainment, unbiased information, and unbiased values, despite the fact that values are the basis of "bias."

In conclusion, the Dominion will most definitely not support this proposal. It is far too specific, both in the regulation of a service and the establishment of service specifically for television. The service will eventually crash, and become a drain on government funds, because we would have to keep it around.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

"Although we here in the Shazbotdom Empire feel that Public Access Television is a good source for local entertainment, education, and knoledge of local events going on, we feel that the World Assembly shouldn't need to Mandate it's existance. We would suggest that the Propsoal instead Encourage the creation of Public Access Television in WA Member States.

We also suggest that the WA suggest, to some respect, of these Public Access Organizations being funded mostly through donations with a little money from a fiscal budget and a small 0.25% tax on whatever form of Television Broadcast that the WA member nation. Although we wouldn't suggest that the proposal Mandates any form of funding for these Organizations."

Also, how do you propose the service be funded? By government money? I certainly hope not, as you wish it to be independent of government control. The more I read this proposal, the more it seems like you want the government to set up a television company, then regulate it very closely, oh but it must be independent of government control.


So it is ok to fail to manage the fiscal budget if manging the budget would threaten the quality of transmission?


So you either want the service to broadcast a blank screen or to be open to an indefinite amount of lawsuits and people claim that the service is not respecting their views and opinions. Seems like you're trying to please everybody...or be sued. That seems unlikely to work.

In other words, you do not know where the service would and should be receiving funding from and you do not care.

Also, in nations where television is an active business, it would be a poor choice for government to muscle in with a company. Moreover, the company is regulated to the most minute aspects and, strangled by these regulations, will not survive the competition of other companies. Eventually, the service will essentially fail, only hanging on because the government must fund it, despite no one using it, because this proposal would mandate that one must exist, ignoring whether or not it functions. The source of funding is ambiguous, and with advertising limited, funding would become even more difficult to find.

Fortunately, however, the proposal does not set any minimum amount of time -- whether per day, per week, or on any other basis -- during which these services would be required to be "on the air"... ;)


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
speaking on behalf of the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

You know, in Quintessence of Dust, we have this thing called the Internet...?

The implementation of a national television system requires greater infrastructure investment than does a project to increase access to laptops and mobile phones, which furthermore allow access to more, and more user-directed, content. We'd support the latter but aren't so keen on the former (particularly as we have our own existing channel, QBC, with which this might interfere in annoying ways, as there is no provision for nations with an existing such service).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I am simply going to say, NO.

The second draft is as follows:

Public Access Television Service (PATS)

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Free Press

Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

WHEREAS the Television is a potential source of information, education, and entertainment;

CONCERNED:
- That some member nations do not have a Public Access Television Service that is accessible or reliable, or worse;
- That the existing Public Television Service of a member nation may be unregulated, biased, and deemed inappropriate for all audiences.

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that a Public Access Television could play major role in the development of knowledge and education of the people of all ages; but it may be effective only if it is appropriately regulated by independent and unbiased bodies;

1. DEFINES:
a) The License Fee as a permit for each household or premises to receive television transmissions from all broadcasters;

2. MANDATES:
a) That member nations establish at least one Public Access Television Service, in which its role shall be:
- To entertain, inform, and educate, respecting all political, racial, cultural, or religious views;
- To ensure and hold responsibility for the quality and appropriateness of broadcasts for the audience, and to respect the feedback and requests the audience may provide;
- To promote the values of the country and culture, engage in current events, and;
- To promote the advancement of the technology of the Television.
b) That the Public Access Television Service is to be transmitted, at least, nationwide.

3. AUTHORIZES:
a) The Public Access Television Service to be funded by any source of income, so long as it supports the work of the Public Broadcaster(s).
b) The Public Access Television Service to determine whether to carry advertising or not.

4. MANDATES, but ONLY in the event that a Public Access Television Service decides to carry advertising:
a) That a Public Access Television Service shall be responsible for the appropriateness of any advertising they may carry.

5. MANDATES, but ONLY in the event that a member nation decides to enforce the License Fee in order to fund the Public Access Television Service:
a) That the License Fee shall not exceed one hundred and fifty times the cost of one loaf of bread, national currency;
b) That a member nation who implements the License Fee initiate a waiver or concession for people of old age, who are unemployed, with disability, or a combination of both.

6. AUTHORIZES an authority of a member nation responsible for the collection of the License Fee not to impose penalties if they wish.

7. EMPHASIZES that this resolution does not prohibit broadcasts from any commercial or private television companies that may operate in a member nation.

ENCOURAGING member nations to provide an established, unbiased, and regulated Public Access Television Service; without any third-party advertising, if it is possible.

Explanatory notes:

This resolution promotes and render at one least Public Television service compulsory, which shall be created with the purpose to entertain, inform, and educate the audience, respecting all political, racial, cultural, or religious views; and to be responsible for the quality, content and appropriateness of its programs, and adverts if they choose to do so.

This resolution shall control, if a member nation chooses to implement the license fee, restrict the maximum fee to, and mandate concessions and waivers to people of old age, who are unemployed, with disability, or a combination of both. Penalties for non-payment shall be optional.

Your new draft seems to have offered a response to none of my objections. Therefore, the Dominion would still reject the proposal.

Good day,
The Dominion

OOC:
Maybe it might a good idea to read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, it might help to refine your proposal a bit more. If you want a link, Here (http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/text.html) it is. It's a bit of a long read but it might help.

Urm...what if a nation doesn't have television due to poverty, local conditions or past techniness? Furthermore, is it really a good idea to force the foundation of a national TV station in countries with very few TV owners, or small principalities that might be better off negotiating with neighbouring, larger, nations for TV services, etc? What if TV is banned due to religious or cultural reason - according to this resolution, they would have to provide a TV station without any viewers!

Sir Cyril etc.

OoC: Even if one were to go by reasonable nation theory, and assume that all nations are MT, TV access is by no means a guarantee - Bhutan did not get TV until 1999, for example. According to this resolution