Telecommunication Industry - NBC Company - Case Study Example

Telecommunication Industry Name Institution Introduction Media ownership is a source of heated debates all over the world, as interest groups lobby on the extent governments should have powers over the media. In fact, there is little academic review or research that stipulate government powers on media ownership and how it can be measured or regulated. It is apparent that the government should allow media freedom by ensuring that the media accrues freedom of cultural expression, opinion, and diversity voices. Moreover, there is a need for modern democracies to allow the media produce new sources that promote popular culture, entertainment and literature (Organization for Economic Co-operation, 2012). However, this is not the case for most developing nations because governments interfere with news production to safeguard their interests and fool their citizens. As such, this has sprouted a global debate on ways the government should grant the media a freedom of choice so that they can truly deliver diverse news and compete with new media. Therefore, this will ensure that media can serve the public interest by enhancing the delivery of entertainment and information. In this regard, this paper seeks to discuss whether the Australian government should own NBC Media Company. It will seek to provide an explanation for the significance of government involvement in media by providing both its advantages and disadvantages. Media NBC Company plays a major role in its country, and many citizens acknowledge how it has shaped their personal choices and influenced their thinking. NBC is an American media company, which has a television and radio network and was created in 1956 in New York City (Noam, 2015). NBC also broadcasts its news in Australia whereby it is very instrumental in promoting education, entertainment, and disseminating information. It is also effective in generating social and political ideas through helping Australia citizens to shape policy priorities and agendas. Nevertheless, the company is also responsible for mobilizing social and political groups, monitoring and criticizing the government and keeping social institutions in check. The Australian government gives an immense freedom to media owners; however, the media stations do not enjoy constitutional protection. Australia has enlisted particular bodies with the authority to regulate the broadcasting sector. For instance, the Australian Communication and Media Authority is tasked with protecting all the consumers and foreign users that work in the electronic media. It also ensures that media houses foster a working environment that respect community standards and meet the customers’ needs. However, it is apparent that the media regulation in Australia is inconsistent, and the government has less influence on media owners. Moreover, Australia registers a concentrated media environment, which makes it difficult for the government to exert its influence on the media companies (Duncan & Bollard, 2008). Nevertheless, the role of media is less articulated in Australia, and media does not perform its primary function, which is to foster public interest. Thus, it is possible that Australia Broadcasting does not provide the necessary media diversity that serves the public interest. So considering these factors, one can argue that the government should own NBC and help it meet the public interest needs. Furthermore, government ownership in this regard will entail that NBC Company can access new opportunities and customers provided by the government. As such, the new media ownership will be free to develop and expand its boundaries to accrue new citizen journalism. This kind of journalism increases mass interaction and this will allow the government to inspire and educate its citizens (Ross, 2011). On the other hand, if the Australian government influences its authority in NBC, it is believed that media barons will influence national policies. For instance, the media owners will indulge in policymaking and allocate broadcasting licenses to many stations. When the media barons influence national policies, there will be added expense to the government, which may not keep up with the rising costs. Arguably, other critics indicate that it is not necessary for the government to own media houses in Australia because the country has a small marketplace and this will generate less revenue for the government. There is also less political polarization in Australia, which is a major causality for a low economic growth that will outlay media concentration. Moreover, research indicates that Australian media is influenced by a commercial ideology that reflect the reality that faces its economy (Middleton & Chang, 2012). Therefore, this will restrict any diverse views, or antagonistic vies that the media can offer to its citizens making it less economical for government to be involved in the media business. Since the early 19th century, the state has played critical roles in the telecommunication industry, from a regulator to an owner in the private sector. The state government involvement in media has diminished since the early part of the 1980s. However, the recent years have witnessed increased demands for the intervention of the state (Pease, Rowe, & Wright, 2007). Throughout the better part of the 20th century, despite the great existence of differences in the telecommunication industry, the government owned most of the companies. The potential benefits of government ownership of the telecommunication industry include the following; Advantages The primary argument for government ownership is that the companies will have a profit incentive that will lead to cutting down costs because the government will increase funding towards the telecommunication industry thus improving service delivery (Beaumont & Costa, 2008). Without the funding of the government to these industries, some of the projects that would be beneficial to the society could not be done. The Australian department of transport provides loan guarantees to companies involved in the telecommunication industry. Such type of funding can spur great developments in areas that struggled to obtain government support. Additionally, the ownership of the telecommunication industry will enable the provision of essential services to the citizens at a cheaper and very affordable rate. For instance, the provision of internet and telephone services remains one of the key services that the government can offer to its citizens (Coakes & Coakes, 2009). If such critical services are left to the discretion of the private sector, then it means that the consumers will pay a lot of money in the end. It is because the private companies are profit motivated. Because the state-owned corporations are solely for the provision of essential services, hence they will charge cheaper prices than their counterparts in the private sector will. Further, the ownership will prevent the citizens and the consumers from exploitation by the privately owned companies. It is because the government will ensure the provision of services at a cheaper rate to the taxpayer. Moreover, the ownership will enable the state control the strategic sector of the economy. It is imperative to note that some sectors if not adequately monitored and controlled in a proper manner will pose adverse risks to the citizens. For instance, the telecommunication industry can provide poor services if not adequately monitored by the state. Hence, the state ownership will enable proper monitoring to ensure that the members of the public are not exploited. It is paramount to note that the state facilitates the purpose of service delivery. As such, the ownership will enable development of areas that would otherwise have been neglected since the private sector focuses on specific areas. The advantage of this is made possible through the laws and regulations adopted which favor state-owned corporations. As such, it is easy for the state to alter its laws for the purposes of achieving the objectives of service delivery to the public. Finally, the ownership of the telecommunication industry will enable the state to create jobs for its citizens. Disadvantages As with everything, the ownership of the telecommunication industry by the state comes with its disadvantages. Firstly, the ownership of the corporation by the state can be plagued by high levels of political interference that might hinder development and service delivery. As such, the projected growth will not be achieved as expected due to frequent wrangles in the management of these industries. Further, the state ownership might expose the corporation to frequent cases of corruption. It is because the need to make quick money can motivate the workers due to the lack of strictness in management. The notion of negative attitude associated with the workers of state-owned corporations can lead to poor service delivery. It is evident that some workers of the state owned companies could have negative attitude, which might hinder efficiency in service delivery (ICN Group, 2006). The high level of bribery and corruption remains one of the key challenges of ownership by the state. Additionally, ownership of the telecommunication industry by the state involves many bureaucracies. For instance, to achieve such an objective the state has to put in place laws and regulations. However, the process of passing these laws takes a lot of time and debate. As such, the delivery of essential services can be hindered due to the nature of bureaucracy involved (Chand, 2009). For instance, for a state owned corporation to implement a certain objective, the appropriate amendment must be made in the parliament. Such processes might consume a lot of time and hinder the provision of services to the members of the public. Moreover, the leadership of the country can change after every election. As such, the new who have been elected might not be purely inclined to continue with the manifestos of their predecessors. In some other cases, the previous terms of the state owned corporations could be renegotiated because of new budgetary requirements within the new government. Conclusion The government should allow media freedom by ensuring that the media accrues freedom of cultural expression, opinion, and diversity voices. We have seen that there many benefits that the telecommunication industry by having the government has an owner. However, despite all these benefits media freedom is paramount and having the Australian government own, NBC Company will come with a myriad of disadvantages. These disadvantages not only compromise the quality of news but that also hinder service provision because of bureaucracies associated with the government. References Beaumont, N., & Costa, C. (2008). Information Technology Outsourcing in Australia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Chand, S. (2009). Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Corporations. Chicago: Wiley & Sons Publishers. Coakes, E., & Coakes, J. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of the Direction and State of Sociotechnical Research in a Range of Disciplines: For Practitioners and Academics. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development , 1-52. Duncan, I., & Bollard, A. (2008). Corporatization and Privatization; Lessons From Australia. New York: Oxford University Press. ICN Group. (2006). Report of the ICN Working Group on Telecommunications Services. Cape Town: ICN Group Publishers. Middleton, C., & Chang, S. (2012). The Adoption of Broadband Internet in Australia and Canada. In M. Chang, Telecommunication Industry in Australia (pp. 41-45). Sydney: Adventure Works Press. Noam, E. M. (2015). Who Owns the World Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World. New York: Oxford University Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation. (2012). The Development of Broadband Access in OSCD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pease, W., Rowe, M., & Wright, L. (2007). ICT and Regional Development in Australia. Perth : Cengage Publishers. Ross, P. (2011). Organizational and Workforce Motivation of State Owned Corporations. International Journal of the Telecommunication Corporation in Australia , 8-24. Read More