SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill

This Bill will create a National Broadcaster.

a) Funding
The Atlasian National Broadcaster will be funded through a national levy that will be added to personal and corporate tax determinations. The additional levy will be 0.5% of taxable income.

Personal tax
- a National Broadcasting Levy of 0.5% of annual taxable income will be placed on individual incomes of $40,001 and up and household incomes of $50,001 and up.

Corporate taxation
- a National Broadcasting Levy of 0.5% of annual taxable income will be placed on corporate incomes of $350,001 and up.

Advertising
- No advertising for non-National Broadcasting programs or products will be permitted on television or radio.

b) Structure
Television
- this Bill will create one national television network within 12 months of this Bill being passed. An analogue signal will be in place until July 2014 and a digital signal in place from the inception.

Radio
- this Bill will create one national radio station within 12 months of this Bill being passed.

c) Management
This Bill create a advisory and management Board. The Board will be appointed by a Senate vote, based on public nominations. The Government will have no control over content.

The Management Board
- will consist of 5 Atlasians, with 6 month terms
- a Chair will be elected within the Board
- the role of the Management Board will be to determine programming, budget allocations and merchandising

The Advisory Board
- will consist of 3 Atlasians with 3 month terms
- the role of the Advisory Board will be to advise the Management Board in their deliberations.

Sponsor: Clarence

[Senator Clarence]

I want it to be known that I sponsored this bill as a favor to Polnut- I strongly oppose it. With the exception of emergency notification the government has NO place in broadcasting and what makes this bill even more egregious is the fact that it comes with a tax increase.

Mr. President- the people don't need a tax increase and they certainly do not need it for THIS... I strongly oppose this bill

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want the President hauled up here to defend this. He has 24 hours.

[Senator Sbane]

I'm leaning towards nay, but maybe President Polnut can change my mind.

[shua]

That tax comes to about $30 Billion.

[Secretary Polnut]

This is a common factor across the globe to provide entertainment/news without being driven by advertising.

We can easily reduce the costs.

Look at the BBC does anyone doubt the value of the BBC? This is an opportunity for Atlasia to not just provide support for Atlasian arts and culture but also to provide an avenue to export them abroad.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of cheap, tacky television based upon nothing more than shock, sensationalism and dumbing down our national discourse.

I'm fully prepared to defend the values behind this Bill, as well as the benefits.

I would however prefer not to focus the argument on emotional/theoretical arguments about the role of government in broadcasting.

[Senator Clarence]

Mr. President- you say you are "sick of cheap, tacky television"- so am I. The difference is I do not want the taxpayers to have to chip in to give me a new channel. If the people do not like TV as it is- demand for a new station will create one...I do not believe we are elected to judge the quality of television programs and add to the bloat of government if we see a lack in that quality

[asexual trans victimologist]

Certain language in the bill seems to imply that non-ANB broadcasting would be prejudiced by this (I'm thinking of 'television or radio' under 'Advertising' and the uses of 'one national television network' and 'one national radio station'). Could the President clarify this? If this is the case I believe that this bill would limit free speech and would like to see it reworked, though I support the ideas behind it.

[Senator Sbane]

Yes, I am opposed to the advertising section. Why shouldn't non-national broadcast channels be able to advertise?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is certainly ridiculous.

Amendment:
Portion labeled "Advertising"  in section a is struck from the text of the bill.

[TJ in Wisco]

I don't see the point of having the government do this. Why do we need a public news organization, which will tie up money albeit not that much, when we have no shortage of private ones?

[Governor Scott]

I am definitely on the fence on this one.  I would like the President or someone else to lay out why this is essential and specifically how this will improve things for people before I vote for this bill.  Otherwise, I fear that this will put an unnecessary burden on middle-class taxpayers.  And frankly, letting businesses advertise would make this particular service cheaper, so I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed.

[Secretary Polnut]

I will be addressing all points raised shortly.

[Secretary Polnut]

As to Clarence's points.

The first is if this were 30/40 years ago, you'd probably be right. However, what is very clear is that over that period television has become driven by profits... consider this, the average number of commercial breaks and the length of those breaks have increased over those periods, also, the production costs of television have been forced down. So advertising increases and production costs/values reductions.

We haven't seen a commercial network established for a quarter of a century, you think that's because of a lack of demand? No, this is one area where the faith in the market has failed miserably. Two things that have occurred that make your primary view a touch flawed, the rise of cable television and the internet.

Cable is a system that does indeed have room for market activity, if enough people demand a station on... bolivian goat herding it'll arise. If they need more money, they just hike subscription rates... hardly fair on the people who have a hard time paying for such luxuries now.

The Internet is the other thing, both with piracy and the availability of cheaply made, but easily available programming the idea that public demand for a new high-quality network will bring it about is frankly highly optimistic.


I believe I have made plain why I believe we should do this. I'm very happy to investigate the nature of the levy, but to suggest that we as a government have no role in this is frankly ideological and not balanced out by evidence.

Consider this Board will be governed by public nominees, are any of the network or cable channels governed by the public good? The reason why advertising should not be permitted is to avoid the temptation of what has happened to commercial TV now. An hour program is at best... 42-43 minutes long, you need 15 minutes of advertising to pay for less than an hour of television. The quality of the programming should not be undermined by the need to attract advertisers.

A national broadcaster will create high-quality programming that not only reflects Atlasian culture and supports their creative industries of this country, but also be a tremendous opportunity to export those products abroad.

So I ask the Senate, the ones with the open minds , to consider the value of a national broadcaster whose sole-role is to create programming in the national interest, a network where all Atlasians have a stake in it, governed by public nominees and not driven by advertising revenue.

Consider that Atlasia is one of the few developed nations without such a thing?

Atlasia does have small public or community networks but surely we can handle the creation of a such a network here.

The cost factor will be very small on most people, and we can work to bring that down to the minimum, but also consider that many of the highest-quality programs are on premium cable, the most expensive channels. So have we gotten to the point that the only people who deserve such programming are those that can afford it? And those who cant need to make do with revenue-driven drivel and risk the consequences of internet piracy?

[Senator Sbane]

So just to get this straight, no advertising for non-national broadcasting shows will be allowed on the the public TV channel and radio station, correct? The way it is written now, it seems like you ban advertising for non-national broadcasting shows on all TV channels and all radio stations.

[Secretary Polnut]

So just to get this straight, no advertising for non-national broadcasting shows will be allowed on the the public TV channel and radio station, correct? The way it is written now, it seems like you ban advertising for non-national broadcasting shows on all TV channels and all radio stations.

I certainly wouldn't want that... apologies for the confusion.

Yes, this would ONLY apply to the national broadcaster.

[Governor Scott]

After much careful consideration, I have decided that the pros outweigh the cons of this legislation and I will be supporting it.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So just to get this straight, no advertising for non-national broadcasting shows will be allowed on the the public TV channel and radio station, correct? The way it is written now, it seems like you ban advertising for non-national broadcasting shows on all TV channels and all radio stations.

I certainly wouldn't want that... apologies for the confusion.

Yes, this would ONLY apply to the national broadcaster.

That the way it is currently written doesn't align with your intent on that, unless I am misreading the current text. I am willing to withdraw my amendment for a text you find acceptable that clears up the confusion on this matter.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I agree that an amendment purely to clarify the text without changing the meaning of it is a necessity.

[Secretary Polnut]

I agree that an amendment purely to clarify the text without changing the meaning of it is a necessity.

I apologise for the confusion I would request an amendment along those lines.

[Governor Scott]

I propose the following amendment.

Advertising
- No advertising for non-National Broadcasting programs or products will be permitted on nationally broadcasted television or radio.

[ilikeverin]

Why have an analog signal at all?

Would the management board be composed of "real" Atlasians or "NPC" Atlasians?  (If the former, that's ridiculous and I think it should be scrapped or changed to NPC Atlasians.)

Does NPR, or the equivalent, just not exist in Atlasia?

Also, how much revenue would actually be raised through the proposed tax?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Scott's Amendment.


I agree with Senator ILV's sentiments regarding the playability of this board. It should definately be NPC.


Also, what about an Atlasian equivalent to PBS? Was it abolished?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment to solve that playability issue:

c) Management
This Bill create a advisory and management Board. The Board will be appointed by a Senate vote, based on public nominations. The Government will have no control over content. Both these boards will consist of non-player characters. Their membership and actions simulated by the Game Moderator and/or Secretary of Internal Affairs as necessary.

The Management Board
- will consist of 5 Atlasians, with 6 month terms
- a Chair will be elected within the Board
- the role of the Management Board will be to determine programming, budget allocations and merchandising

The Advisory Board
- will consist of 3 Atlasians with 3 month terms
- the role of the Advisory Board will be to advise the Management Board in their deliberations.

[Senator Clarence]

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...