3176
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 156

company in order to make an application which in fact was
substantially based on the existing operator having a
controlling or substantial interest in the FM station. The
intention of the legislation is clear.

However, IBC have taken the proper attitude and we
believe that the monopoly aspect will be much less important
than Mr Gough or the PSA submit in their submissions.

(j) The hours during which the applicant proposes to broadcast

The service will be a 24-hour one with a relay from
Metropolitan FM in the early morning off-peak hours. We
can see no objection to this arrangement.

(k) The extent of advertising matter which the applicant proposes
to broadcast

The applicant proposes a self-imposed limit of 8 minutes
and is opposed to a restriction of less than 12 minutes per
hour. It says that the self-imposed restriction has worked
effectively with the AM operations confining themselves to
12 minutes.

The Tribunal considers however that where a solus FM
operation is to be established, it is desirable to limit the
commercial content by condition in the warrant to 8 minutes
per hour. This is particularly so in view of the submissions
made by the Corporation.

During the initial stages the Tribunal considers it is
appropriate to limit it to a maximum of 6 minutes an hour.
This is a figure which we anticipate will not inhibit reasonable
revenue and profitability. That limit would rise to 8 minutes
when Radio Waikato ceases operations and thus withdraws
from the advertising market.

We believe the rates being offered are low. That has caused
considerable concern to competitors. The station may well
decide to raise its advertising rates to a higher level having
regard to the limited commercial content.

We should say that in the long term the advertising rates
will be based on market shares and of course the marketing
abilities of the various operators.

(m) Such matters as may be necessary for the purpose of imposing
conditions under section 71A of this Act

These have been covered under other headings.

(n) All relevant evidence or representations received by it at the
hearing

Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd., holder of the AM warrant 1XX
for Whakatane, did not object to the application but raised
a number of matters of concern.

The company considered the effective radiated power too
high because it said it would extend the signal into its primary
service area and would have an effect on the audience of
1XX AM or FM. That could affect the viability of the station.

It was submitted that there was no community of interest
between the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty and that it would
be serving too many communities and regions.

Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd. said the proposed format was
too similar to that of existing stations and that the company
would be operating a juke box without any real community
service.

It was submitted that the advertising rates appeared to be
too low and the establishment of a Tauranga sales office meant
the possibility of selling in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

1XX uses the Pacific network news and there would
therefore be a duplication.

The Tribunal was asked to change the direction of the
signal, to impose a restriction on the selling of advertising
in Central and Eastern Bay of Plenty, to require the applicant
to provide an alternative news-service, to improve the
community service commitment and to provide a truly
alternative format.

As to the economic effect on the station no evidence was
produced by the company to support its statements.

We do not believe that the type of community station
successfully conducted by Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd. would
be seriously effected by this regional programme but we do
agree that where it can be well heard it will be listened to.

In the absence of evidence of the effect on the station we
are unable to find that there is adequate reason for changing
the nature or extent of the coverage proposed.

As far as any FM operation by Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd.
is concerned the Tribunal notes that the only application for
FM services in the area is from that company and they are
for the total duplication of the AM programme from FM
transmitters. The effect of the granting of this application
will be to provide a new programme service in the area which
neither 1XX nor any other applicant has sought to provide.

It may well be that 1XX will consider joining with the
present warrant holder in a transmission directed to the
audience in the Eastern and Central Bay of Plenty which
might carry some local programming and the regional
programming from the Te Aroha site. But that is a matter
for Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd. We do not see the proposal by
Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd. to provide a duplicated programme
to its listeners in its service area on FM as providing a ground
for criticism that this applicant's programming is too similar.

We consider that there will be a sufficient difference in
format from the existing stations to provide a contrast to the
AM programming. We do not expect that an FM station will
or should make any attempt to provide the same community
service content as an AM station. The submission in that
respect fails to understand the essential difference that has
already occurred in FM broadcasting here and abroad. In
this case one of the aspects which will make the station less
competitive with local AM stations is that it will be operating
over a wide region and cannot provide a close local
community service. Nor is it compatible with the music
objectives of the station to load it with that sort of information
role.

We see no point in preventing the available signal reaching
those fortunate listeners in some parts of the Bay of Plenty
beyond Tauranga who might welcome the opportunity of
receiving this FM programme..

The question of advertising rates is dealt with elsewhere.

The prime purpose of the FM station is not to provide a
news and information service and we see no significant
disadvantage in the application because it is proposed to carry
a network news service from Radio Pacific which is the same
service as is carried by 1XX.

There is no justification, in the absence of any evidence
from Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd., for the imposition of a
restriction on the selling of advertising in the Central and
Eastern Bay of Plenty area. We expect it would be more likely
to be an incidental service from the station having regard to
the small numbers of listeners in the area who would be
reached from this regional station. We would be surprised if
the rates proved to be competitive with 1XX but again lack
any evidence from that station to support its submissions.

(o) Such other matters as may be prescribed in regulations in that
behalf

The Tribunal is required to have regard to Regulation 15A,
Broadcasting Regulations 1977 which reads:

“15A. (1) In considering any application for a sound radio
warrant in respect of an AM broadcasting station or a FM
broadcasting station, the Tribunal, before determining
whether or not to grant the application, shall have regard to
the policy of the Government under which a frequency
modulation (FM) broadcasting service is to be developed as
an integral part of sound-radio broadcasting in New Zealand.”

(2) Nothing in this regulation limits the provisions of
paragraphs (a) to (n) of section 80 of the Act.”.

By direction dated 27 October 1981 the Minister of
Broadcasting notified the Broadcasting Tribunal that after
considering its report on the development of frequency
modulation broadcasting in New Zealand, it was a part of
the general policy of the Government in relation to
broadcasting that a FM broadcasting service be developed
as an integral part of sound-radio broadcasting in New
Zealand and that it be introduced in New Zealand without
delay.

In pursuance of that policy the Tribunal was directed to
call progressively for applications for sound-radio warrants
in respect of commercial FM broadcasting stations to be
established in areas outside Auckland.

As well as considering each of the criteria under section
80, including section 80 (o), we are required by section 68 to
have regard to the general policy of the Government in
relation to broadcasting and to comply with any directions
given by the Minister of Broadcasting in writing. The calling
for this application was in compliance with the direction to
do so. The general policy which is relevant is summarised
above. It is set out in full in the ministerial directions.