1st July, 2008

The following was brought to our attention recently:

"Following a eleven month investigation by the nations broadcast regulator, the Australian Media and Communications Authority, Albany radio station Fly FM is to stay on air with its top 50 music format.

Although delighted that the station will remain on air, station owners Warren and Kira Mead are not in agreement with all of ACMAs findings, and have expressed concern that the authority may have breached itâ??s own Principles For Decision Making paper. Fly FM plans to appeal the investigation through the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In the meantime, they will abide be an written undertaking to play all songs in the same order. A cover note that accompanied the undertaking, and addressed to ACMA chairman Chris Chapman, stated:

We acknowledge that ACMA has found that our narrowcast service is not in accordance with our s21 opinion. We respectfully disagree with the legal basis of this finding. Despite this, we will fully abide by the signed enforceable undertaking. However, we wish to make it clear that this document should not be taken to prejudice or preclude any further action or appeals we may wish to take.

ACMA published the Meads undertaking on their web site, but have refused to include the covering letter.

According to Kira Mead the ACMA investigation means only a small change to the way we run our business, but we believe it has larger consequences for the independent radio landscape in Australia, and we feel its important to see this through.

ACMA Investigation 1871 was instigated by Commercial Radio Australia, who in Albany, represent the Macquarie owned stations Radio West and Hot FM. Radio West station manager in Albany, Jane Hansen, assisted the complaint by making audio recordings of Fly FM. For a business that until recently positioned itself as The Locals You Know they seem to be excessively keen on snuffing out any local competition Mr Mead said. Its remarkable that a group who can afford to pay its former CEO a $50 million dollar golden handshake, would be so concerned about the music content of a small station in Albany.

The Meads described tactics of Commercial Radio Australia as grubby, and in particular, want answers on how a confidential email between Kira Mead and music industry body ARIA, mysteriously ended up in the hands of CRAs Joan Warner, who quoted from the letter in correspondence with ACMA.

Throughout the investigation, Fly FM owners Warren and Kira Mead, have consistently argued that they were doing nothing wrong, and maintain that there is no clear legal basis in the Broadcasting Services Act to support ACMAs ruling.

The fact that ACMA intends to shortly commence a review of section 8 of the Broadcasting Services Clarification Notice 2001, indicates to us that we were right all along Mr Mead said.

We paid $1300 to get our program approved by the regulator, and firmly believe our program was running as stated in that Prior Opinion - now it appears ACMA have had a change of heart , and want to fiddle with the act to suit their whims.

Warren and Kira Mead thanked listeners and local business for their support during the investigation.I believe that most small business owners can relate to what we've been through, and no doubt, have their own stories about the arrogance of large corporations and their minions".

Some members may have been following these events previously as they are of considerable significance to the future of narrowcasting in Australia. Warren and Kira need our support. They can be reached at: Kira Mead 0429 418192

am1611 [@] westnet.com.au

24th January, 2008

Please sign this IARBA Petition and join us in asking the Minister and the ACMA to reverse the previous governments unfair ban on new entries to Digital radio. With the inclusion of DRM theres plenty of room for left out community stations narrowcast and narrowband and new entrants.

Senator the Hon
Stephen Conroy

Dear Sir,

We the digitally undersigned ask that in the interests of media diversity, fairness and good planning that you reverse the the previous governments unfair ban on new entries into Digital radio.

We ask that you consider a two-tiered Digital Radio implementation that includes the DRM Standard so that country areas will not be left out of access to Digital Radio. As you may be aware DAB Plus performs poorly outside metropolitan areas.

We ask that DRM be included both for those broadcasting stations left out of current DAB Plus proposals: existing community stations, narrowcasters, narrowband stations and also that it be included for new entrants.

We also ask that in any strategy that your department undertakes to promote Digital Receivers, that any such promotion includes those models that can receive both the DAB Plus and DRM Standards. CLICK HERE TO SIGN.

10th October, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
11/10/2007

IARBA APPLAUDS THE RECENT DETERMINATION BY THE ACCC IN REGARD TO THE PPCA

IARBA (The Independent Australian Radio Broadcasters Association) recently became involved in the ACCC review of the re-authorization of the royalty collection arrangements of the PPCA.

Secretary Ryan Maguire said the original request and draft determination of the ACCC upon it gave IARBA members some cause for concern:

"IARBA wanted to see a clarification of the non-exclusive nature of the blanket PPCA licenses and the establishment of a clear right of a musician (or label legally representing musicians) to license music use directly to radio, whether it was also covered by a PPCA license for radio or not. Particularly that the PPCA was restricted from making such direct arrangements "not allowable" under its licensing regime. Also that the PPCA did not in operation cause such arrangements to be undesirable for economic or other factors. This did not seem to be the case."

"We are very pleased however with the final determination of the ACCC which imposes conditions upon the re-authorization that go a long way towards clarifying and resolving this situation. Every Label or Musician licensing their music through the PPCA must develop, publish and make available to end-music-users who request them, a set of guidelines for direct licensing. This will be a condition of PPCA licensing and the PPCA will be required to actively monitor member compliance with it."

"Of course this is only a small victory in our efforts to remove the unfair and inequitable situation that exists in terms of radio performance royalties in Australia. Advertising time is the only commodity of value our members have to sell, yet not only do these Music businesses expect our members to give them that airtime for free; they also expect us to pay them for the privelege of advertising their products for sale. It has long seemed anti-competitive and unfair that for any single product other than music, no such arrangements exist."

IARBA is part of the international effort to fight Royalty payments from Radio use to multi-national Music companies at every level. IARBA is an Australian member of the FreeInternetRadio group (Internet Broadcasters) and the Free Radio Alliance (Terrestial Broadcasters).

"The arguement has always been put that it is the individual struggling artist who stands to lose should royalties from radio stop - the truth is that the individual struggling artist rarely sees any of the vast amounts of royalties that are collected annually. The individual struggling artist is invariably just glad that they get played on the radio."

"The large record labels who persist with their own failed business models, exert pressure globally to increase revenue from royalty payments. To this end IARBA works with broadcasters globally to resist that pressure. For example the Free Radio Alliance (through the NAB) is currently arguing performance royalties before the American Senate. The Large labels have pointed to the sucess of performance royalties in other countries such as Australia as a basis for their case. IARBA will make sure that the FRA has the necessary local information to refute these claims."

5th October, 2007

Cathy Rought
Free Radio Alliance
www.freeradioalliance.org

Dear Cathy,
Reading the facts page on your website is like a breathe of fresh air. We have been saying the EXACT SAME THING for many years down under and despite lobbying the government our member stations are still left with primitive anti-competitive Royalty Collection arrangements which only benefit the coffers of the Major labels, despite the fact that they are simply businesses like ourselves.

Advertising time is the only commodity of value we have to sell, yet not only do these businesses expect that time for free, but also for us to pay THEM for the privelege of advertising their products for sale. If the product is any single thing other than music, no such arrangements exist.

Any challenge to this situation out here has been met, similar to the situation you have faced in America, with the labels propping up show-piece big name artists in the media, to talk about how "hard done by they are", despite the fact that the Labels exploit them continually.

We applaud your efforts and hope that success in this direction in the US will gradually help to reflect similar changes in Australia.

Yours Faithfully,

Sean Ison
President
IARBA - Independent Australian Radio Broadcasters Association
http://www.iarba.org
+61(0) 280041536

Secretary:
ryan.maguire@australiandigitalradio.com

24th September 2007

Amendments to Broadcasting Services Act Pose Serious Threat to Webcasting

The government has made changes to the Broadcasting Services act which they suggest are
timely for changes in media delivery legislation. The amendments stipulate that a Code of
Practice be developed by which streaming content is delivered; including a complaints
procedure. This seems reasonable: for a long time the advertising value of webmasters has
been undermined in this country and for the Broadcasting Legislation to include them is
something of a win. However the draft Code of Practice is currently being developed by
the IIA who's primary concern in developing the code appears to be that they may be
involved as co-defendants in litigation, rather than recognizing our role as a New Media
Industry. We are not attacking the IIA, this is quite reasonable placed in the situation
they are in, but we are concerned about the type of Code of Conduct that may end up being
registered from their perspective.

We actually agree that in so far as live streaming is concerned ISP's that provide us
with media servers are no different than for example a Transmitter company who leases a
transmitter to an am/fm broadcaster; and they should be legally held harmless. Internet
Radio Stations are quite happy to take responsibility for what they broadcast, along the
same lines as more traditional radio services. Naturally we enjoy a lack of licensing
regulation, therefore are not suggesting we would find it appropriate in the context of
"taking responsibility", particularly as licensing's traditional basis is that radio
spectrum is a scarce resource: not that licensing is a basis by which to regulate media
content. We are however happy to abide by Codes of Practice consistent with those used by
traditional media, also consistent with community standards, providing they take into
account our unique ability to absolutely limit (in so far as any technology can provide
"absolutes") access to content to minors; like subscription TV and unlike for example
free to air radio; and that we have a say in developing them - not have them imposed upon
us "from above" at the ISP level.

IARBA is currently drafting a Code of Practice to register with the ACMA, originating
from Streaming Content Providers, to give us a say in our industry.
If you are involved in Streaming Content Media online in Australia (webcasting audio,
radio or video, podcasting etc.) , or your service originates from Australia we would
like to hear from you with your ideas and suggestions as to what such a Code should and
shouldn't contain. Our first draft is something similar to the Code of Conduct for
Commercial Radio, however this is only a draft as we needed a starting point.

Please email ryan.maguire@australiandigitalradio.com with any comments or submissions you
would like to make. Please pass this email on to anyone you feel may wish to be part of
the process.

Whilst we welcome comment from the general public, in order for you to be included in the
actual drafting process please make sure you provide details of the Streaming Content
Service you provide: At a minimum the site name, URL, (or former Site name & URL) your
name and email address.

24th July 2007

ACCC
re: ACCC proposes to allow collective administration of sound recording rights by PPCA

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is the belief of our members that increasingly the Australian
Radio Industry is being forced into anti-competitive practices by the
various Performing Arts associations; attempting to "latch" onto the
momentum of current royalty decisions in the United States.

This in defiance of both logical market forces and the individual
rights of musicians to decide how their music is used.

If a private company (other than a Record Label) wishes to
advertise their products on radio they have to pay for a
portion of the valuable commodity (air time) that the radio station
provides. The company pays a fee for this and their products are
advertised on the station.

If however a record label provides its products for radio airplay,
this is with the clear intention of generating sales; hence the
competition by Record Labels to have their music broadcast.
However, due to outdated, anti-competitive royalty structures and
carefully staged Media pressure brought to bear by prominent artists
on behalf of the Record Labels; Radio Stations using commercial music
product are forced to pay for the privelege of advertising another
companies products.

There is also concern among our members, some of whom are large
users of music directly licensed by individual artists to step
outside this costly and anti-competitive structure; that recent moves
by the PPCA could be construed as an attempt to put into place
administration that will make it harder for artists or smaller labels
to directly license their own music on an air-time barter agreement.

We would like to see a clarification of the non-exclusive nature of
the blanket licenses in the proposed collective licensing
arrangements - The clear right of a musician or label legally
representing musicians to license music use directly, whether it is
also covered by a PPCA license for Commercial Radio or not.

Further that in the proposed "outlining the circumstances in which it
would consider entering into direct licenses" labels and individual
members be given democratic and reasonable latitude to barter the use
of their music without Administrative Interference or punitive
conditions of Membership imposed by the PPCA.

Yours Faithfully,

The Independent Australian Radio Broadcasters Association

Sean Ison
President

UPDATE:

PPCA has suggested that these conditions are unworkable:

"Each PPCA licensor develop and publish on their respective websites the
circumstances in which they would consider entering into direct licences with
the users of public performance and transmission rights of sound recordings
including the process users should follow to seek such licences. This advice
should be published within 6 months of the date of the final determination".
The ACCC has agreed to look at the wording of the above clause.

The final decision by the ACCC is pending.

UPDATE: 11/10/2007

The right for members to develop direct licensing strategies has been refined in such a way that it appears to benefit our members moreso than previous authorizations:

The Final Determination of the ACCC was that:

"PPCA is to amend its input licences to require each PPCA licensor to independently develop a set of guidelines which outline the circumstances in which the licensor would consider entering into direct licences for public performance and transmission rights in sound recordings with users and potential users of these rights. The guidelines should include the contact person and relevant details, and the process users should follow to make an enquiry about the option of direct licensing. The guidelines are to be made readily available by way of a website, if the licensor has one, or by an information sheet provided upon request. The amendment is to be made within 6 months of the date which the authorisation comes into effect.
4. PPCA is to monitor licensor compliance with the requirement in the input licences to develop and make publicly available a set of guidelines outlining the circumstances in which they would consider entering into direct licences for public performance and transmission rights in sound recordings with users and potential users of these rights, and will actively pursue non-compliance.
5. PPCA is to report to the ACCC, within 12 months of the date the authorisation comes into effect, as to licensors’ compliance with the requirement."

We are quite satisfied with this outcome, particularly as our intial concerns related to the PPCA being allowed to remove the right to direct licensing as part of membership.

The Finding also clarifies that royalty blanket licenses are "negotiable" rather than fixed, almost statutory fees - an impression often given to members by the PRO's:

"3.26 Broadcasters, such as commercial and community radio broadcasters, and commercial and pay television providers, will also require an output licence for transmission rights.
3.27 There is no standard licence or tariff for licensees who wish to broadcast or transmit a sound recording. Licences for broadcast rights are typically negotiated directly between PPCA and the licensee or between PPCA and a relevant industry association. For example, PPCA negotiates licences with industry representative bodies, including FreeTV37 and Commercial Radio Australia Ltd (CRA).38 PPCA also has individual broadcast and transmission agreements with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), SBS Corporation (SBS), Foxtel, Optus, Austar and Sky Channel.
3.28 The Copyright Act currently provides a statutory cap on the licence fee that a radio broadcaster is required to pay. In the event that PPCA and radio broadcasters are unable to reach agreement on the licence fee, section 152(8) of the Copyright Act provides that the Copyright Tribunal is unable to require a radio broadcaster to pay more than 1% of broadcasters’ gross income as a licence fee. The ACCC understands that the Commonwealth Government has agreed to remove this legislative cap.39.
3.32 Proposed and existing licensing schemes can be referred to the Copyright Tribunal. A licensor who proposes to bring a licence scheme into operation may refer the scheme to the Tribunal.40 A party to a dispute which has arisen under an existing scheme may also refer that scheme to the Tribunal.41 A licensee or potential licensee is able to apply to the Copyright Tribunal to seek a determination as to whether the terms of the licence are reasonable.42 The Tribunal can confirm or vary the scheme, or substitute another scheme proposed by one of the parties, as the Tribunal considers reasonable in the circumstances.
3.33 The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) has expanded the range of licences that may be subject to an application to the Copyright Tribunal. The Tribunal now has jurisdiction in relation to all licences administered by a collecting society. The Copyright Tribunal also has discretion to allow the ACCC to become a party to Tribunal proceedings if the ACCC applies and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so.43"

We are investigating the possibility of appealing the rates charged to our webcasting members. The PPCA, APRA etc. argue that their rates are based on research made by economists; however we can only conclude those economists must obviously have no idea of the actual cost and profit potential of internet radio; we would be interested to see the basis upon which they arrived at the current disproportionate cost-versus profit rates.

IARBA is currently studying another revelation of the finding:

"6.102 The ACCC notes that not all recordings are protected under Australian copyright law as a result of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations 1961 (Rome Convention). Member countries of the Rome Convention have a reciprocal arrangement to provide the same copyright rights in that country to other member countries, and as such protect international recordings under domestic copyright law. The United States is not a member country and its recordings are not automatically protected under Australian copyright law by virtue of the Rome Convention." and the determination that the PPCA must publish a list of unprotected recordings:

and the determination that:

"7. Prior to 31 December each year (save for the qualification discussed at 7(c) below) PPCA is to publish a list on their website, of all sound recordings identified as having been used in the preceding distribution period (ie the preceding financial year). (a) The list should identify which sound recordings PPCA distributed licence fees for, and which sound recordings it did not distribute licence fees for. (b) For those sound recordings which PPCA distributed licence fees for the list must include the song title, artist and the identity of the copyright controller for Australia. For those sound recordings which PPCA did not distribute licence fees for the list should include the song title, artist and the identity of the copyright controller for Australia, to the extent that this information is available. (c) The first list must be published for the 2006-2007 distribution period as soon as possible and no later than by 31 March 2008. The ACCC considers that such a list would allow users to better appreciate which sound recordings are covered by PPCA’s blanket licence and assist users in considering whether directly dealing with individual copyright owners is a viable option for their licensing needs. The ACCC notes that this list is not, and should not be relied upon as, a list of unprotected recordings. The purpose of the list is to provide greater transparency about PPCA’s blanket licence and to give users a starting point to begin their own investigations to determine the status of a particular recording. The ACCC stresses that the condition does not provide users with an unprotected list of sound recordings, and as such, notes that PPCA may qualify that those sound recordings for which it did not distribute fees for do not represent that such are necessarily unprotected, rather they had not been determined as protected."

It may well be that our members can access this unprotected list and use it for common playlist.

=======================================================

12th February 2007

Submission to the ACMA Regarding Digital Audio Broadcasting (Digital Radio)

This submission was proposed for presentation to the ACMA early in 2006. However as we felt that certain factors would become more apparent over time regarding Digital Television (upon which part of the claims of our submission regarding Digital Radio are made) we have waited until now to present it to the ACMA.

It can not now be argued that Digital Television has succeeded in Australia after several years, indeed recent figures indicate that the take up of Digital Television by Australian consumers is quite poor. The figures can be bolstered with Subscription TV users, but this is hardly applicable to free-to-air Digital Radio Audio that will not rely upon subscription. In the ACMA’s recent survey (1) it was indicated that only 29% of Australian households have digital set top boxes to receive free-to-air Digital TV. The second most common reason people indicated that they were not interested in Digital TV was that they “Have to buy equipment/too expensive/not value” (22%). A similar number also said that they “didn’t want to watch more free to air TV” (19%).

It is our opinion that this poor take up of digital television in Australia is due to the fact that the ACMA has only allowed the existing choice of television channels to use the service. There have been attempts to circumvent this (ABC2, SBS News etc.) but these have done little to affect Digital TV’s overall take up. I doubt that the ACMA would disagree with this opinion in view of its recent invitation for comment on two additional Digital TV channels (A & B) for Narrowcasting and Community stations.

We believe the most important lesson gained from the introduction of Digital Television is that Australian Media consumers want a wide variety of entertainment and in particular choice in what they consume. Also that the historical nature of the media: passive consumer, active distributor is an anachronism that has been surpassed by newer technologies such as on demand home DVD video.

We suggest that a similar change has taken place in the nature of radio. Whilst many media outlets continue to tout high sales-oriented ratings figures, this is not supported by the acceptance of new technologies. At one time every Australian teenager had a transistor radio in their pocket, now they have an IPOD or MP3 enabled Mobile phone – regardless of what advertising marketing suggests about radio listening; the uptake of personal stereos, car CD players etc. is a common sense fact that can be seen with ones eyes.

We would argue that sadly despite ratings reports which indicate reasonable levels of consumption of the existing radio services; common sense would seem to indicate that newer technologies such as the IPOD and smaller, more convenient portable personal music have displaced much of what was left of radio’s audience.

Arguments that radio listeners are an older audience fiercely loyal to AM stations are not supported by the growth in CD sales and Internet usage of the current generation of older Australians. Older people clearly do accept new technologies, although not perhaps at the speed of younger people, but they do ultimately accept them.

Digital Radio in Australia is an opportunity for the nature of radio itself to change, much in the same manner that it changed many decades ago when the concept of Commercial (i.e. Private) Radio Broadcast Licenses was a very radical concept, or indeed the idea of Community Radio and later Narrowcasting. These were radical changes in the way radio is delivered, which accepted that more choice was required, and we believe Digital Radio provides the opportunity for another major change. When considering Digital Radio there is no historical precedent for the existing media monopolies to continue, or indeed for there to be any type of protection afforded to the current FM markets.

We would propose that Digital Radio has existed on the Internet for many years and that this is the model Australia should pursue for Digital Radio Broadcasting; the difference being of course that the point of broadcast would be via transmitted carrier rather than over the Internet. Internet radio has often been the recipient of a great deal of criticism, mainly because it is a “level playing field”. Large companies cannot monopolize Internet radio listeners to their financial advantage; Internet Radio Stations survive or sink purely on the basis of their quality and popularity.

The choice available to media consumers via the Internet is vast and has a high level of uptake already. Indeed compare the ADSL uptake of Australian consumers in comparison to Digital TV and it is clear that the Internet (statistically) is a much more popular arena of media delivery. We would argue that this is because of the vast choice it provides. This is a resource, which could be quite easily applied to the Digital Radio spectrum to provide each current AM/FM-only market with hundreds if not thousands of free-to-air radio stations.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Most of the infrastructure for such an approach already exists, with many private ISP’s in a position to commercially provide data transfer (encoded audio programming) to the point of broadcast. Currently to broadcast on the Internet one uses an ISP to host a media server, which delivers the subscribers program content to listeners. In so far as Digital Radio is concerned we would propose what we term the RSP model.

REVENUE

In terms of the actual points of transmission we would propose that centralized transmitters (using a less bandwidth costly model than Eureka 147 currently proposed) would be licensed to RSP providers. The licensing of these RSP Providers could replace the revenue currently gained from licensing larger commercial stations. Whilst initially each RSP Provider would be possibly paying similar amounts to license the centralized transmission point as the existing radio services (participating in auctions), because each RSP would then be available to thousands of stations, the cost currently borne by one corporation would be spread out between many thousands of companies and associations in each radio market. With a reduction in the base cost of licensing for each individual station the money saved would be reflected in higher quality programming.

REGULATION

ISP’s regulate Internet content currently. RSP’s and those that use their services could be governed by similar terms of use and guidelines imposed by the ACMA. This would we feel bring about a vast reduction in the administrative costs of the ACMA as regulation would be essentially privatized within certain safeguards. The onus could be taken away from the licensing of individual apparatus’ (which in each market could become a commonly available facility provided by the licensed RSP) and replaced with content regulation at the RSP level. The same current safeguards would exist with RSP’s able to instantly stop broadcasts at the notification of the ACMA, indeed it would present a major step forward in terms of compliance as conditions could be imposed at the actual carriage level.

LOCALIZATION

Certain stations could be carried by each RSP, or in combination with groups of RSP’s, nationally. The ABC and SBS national radio services could be easily integrated into the RSP model for example. An increase in access to the free-to-air spectrum in every broadcast area in the thousands would mean a vast growth in localized programming and content. This may also provide access to the spectrum by radio services originating outside Australia if it was adjudged to be in the national interest. It may be appropriate to limit access to RSP’s to Australian stations, or to encourage more local content by a pricing structure biased towards Australian stations.

QUALITY

An argument that is often put forward against an increase in media channels, in any given market, is the reduction in quality that this will provide to media consumers. National news will be too expensive to provide, no one station will be able to afford to re-broadcast large sports events etc. etc. However the Commercial Radio Industry currently revolves around a media-sharing model anyway. All of these resources are available as a pool at cost. There is no reason that an RSP model will affect this arrangement in anyway. Certain stations in the RSP “level playing field” will still have the money to purchase rights to broadcast media from these existing pools – a lot will not. If indeed the current reasoning that these high-cost services attract listeners is correct (we would argue otherwise), this will give the existing Commercial Stations an advantage over the newer Stations and their advertising revenues will reflect this. Providing the existing Media Companies are prepared to spend the same amount they do now in exchange for the same higher cut in the available advertising revenues they currently receive, the quality of their stations will remain the same. Whilst many more stations may be available (and hence attract people to Digital Radio), advertisers will naturally continue to support those that have the highest number of listeners, if indeed these high-cost services actually produce them and in the Digital arena Advertisers will be able to know specifically how many people are listening to each station.

OWNERSHIP

We would propose that a limitation be placed on the number of radio channels from any single corporation or other organization into each market, consistent with current guidelines. If a single entity were providing thousands of channels in each market, the uniqueness of each channel would be questionable and not provide any real audience-attracting variety - arguably the current roster of channels provided by Subscription Television (many channels, but sourced from very few providers) and the low uptake of Subscription TV statistically is an example of this.

SECURITY

Whilst Internet security is a matter of national concern various existing safeguards could be adequate in protecting access to the broadcasting network. Locking broadcasters to specific static originating IP addresses (as a number of ISP’s do currently for internet broadcasts) may for example prove adequate. Alternatively the RSP model could rely upon a closed network using leased data pipes from provider to media outlet, inaccessible to the public Internet or Phone network.

It is our submission that the RSP model is necessary to encourage a wide diversity of media and stations, making a Digital Radio Receiver a valued purchase to Australian listeners. Trends overseas and the lack of uptake of Digital Television in Australia have demonstrated that media consumers are not prepared to make this investment otherwise. It is our opinion that the currently proposed model: Essentially the existing stations transfer their broadcast to digital and nothing changes; will ultimately further reduce the number of Australians accessing radio as they will simply not purchase the high priced receivers required. Also that it will be a tragic waste of the technology: The ACMA has the opportunity to increase media availability in every local radio market to approximately one thousand times its existing level, maintain current government licensing revenues and reduce administrative costs with increased privatization.

Yours Faithfully,

The Independent Australian Radio Broadcasters Association

(1) ACMA Sphere, Issue 15, December 2006, p27.

=========================================================

Press Release 23rd February 2007
DIGITAL RADIO HAS ARRIVED IN AUSTRALIA

Remember the days when people wouldn’t leave the house without a transistor radio in their pocket? Well its still there, but now its also a mobile phone! Your Mobile phone is a truly innovative piece of technology that allows you to make calls, send messages, take pictures or video *and* listen to Australian live free-to-air digital radio at home, at the beach, in the car—in fact anywhere you are. 16 million Australians have the equipment they need to receive digital radio sitting in their pockets right now!

Mobile phones have superior sound quality, battery life and portability that far outstrips the old-fashioned portable radio. The digital radio listening experience is enhanced with on-screen information such as the artist / song title, pictures of the artists, CD covers, discographies, news and much more. You also have the option to download ring tones directly whilst playing a song, you can rate or vote for your favourite song and take part in special surveys - its completely interactive. Just like the pocket transistor radio, the mobile phone is small, light and convenient to carry around (I'm told its also something of a fashion accessory!).

But hang on its a phone right? and a radio is a radio right? Not anymore! The modern mobile phone is also a camera and many other things including a digital radio capable receiver. A small, simple and free software plug-in is all that is needed giving you free access to thousands of local and overseas digital channels (growing all the time).

In a move set to lead the way in the realistic implementation of digital radio in Australia, ZFM has collaborated with the German company Spodtronic to introduce the first of its kind free to air digital radio service in Australia. As the service relies upon a public network, it is free from draconian broadcast regulation and the monopolization planned for delivery of digital radio via other methods. Finally every Australian radio market has real variety on their pocket radio!

ZFM live free-to-air digital country radio can be now be heard on mobile phones across Australia and is also available throughout Europe. Several other genres will be operating shortly, including the very popular ZFM Dance network.

http://www.australiandigitalradio.com

=====================================================

PRESS RELEASE
1st July 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Veteran Broadcaster Keith Ashton was today inducted as a Life Member of
IARBA - The Independent Australian Broadcasters Association.

IARBA thanked veteran broadcaster Keith Ashton today inducting him as
the first Life Member of IARBA. The Association conveyed the honour in
appreciation of his involvement in innovation in Australian Broadcasting.
In particular his fundamental role in establishing Narrowcasting in
Australia.

Association Secretary Ryan Maguire said that the tributes to Keith have been
flooding in since the pre-press announcement earlier this year.

"Just about everybody who is anybody in Australian Radio have good memories
of working with Keith at one time or another and all heartily agree that this
recognition is long overdue".

With the assistance of long-time friend Phil Ambler a short biography has been
prepared which can be read the IARBA website at:-

http://www.isonliveradio.com/iarba/lifemembers/keith_ashton.html

ENDS

##

About IARBA

IARBA was formed in the early nineties to provide a basis for collaboration between various different groups involved in new directions and technologies in broadcast radio in Australia.
If you are involved in Narrowcasting, Internet Radio, Community radio or in any other form of non-mainstream broadcasting in Australia you should become part of IARBA.
IARBA exists mainly to support these forms of broadcasting, but also provides assistance to members broadcasting on the AM and SW bands which to a certain extent have become non-mainstream over the last few decades.

http://www.iarba.org