The Stir of the Review of the Communications and Broadcasting Administration

■The Stir of the Review of the Communications and Broadcasting Administration

I appeared at the Radio Symposium, "What was behind the Tohokushinsha Film Corporation/NTT entertaining of guests issue?"

The panel consisted of Nobuo Ikeda (ex-NHK), Shin Yasunobe (ex-Ministry of International Trade and Industry), Takeshi Natsuno (ex-NTT Docomo), and myself (ex-Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications).

The independent committee on communications and broadcasting was the point at issue.

I will make a note of what was said and what was not said.

The independent committee comes to the fore every 10 years - from the Hashimoto administration in 1998, to the DPJ administration in 2009, and now this time.

I was in charge at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications in 1998, and I killed that conversation.

I was against it in 2009 as well, and for one reason: "It would tighten regulations". That hasn't changed.

However, the result of that conversation being quashed 20 years ago has led to the current turmoil, so this time I am not opposed to it.

First of all, how do you evaluate the administration of the past 20 years?

I see the media administration as "Doing well" under the the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

The main objective which is to develop digital infrastructure, has been more successful in Japan than in other countries, and the reputation of the government office has improved since the days of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.

The independent organizations in the United States., France, and the United Kingdom are much tighter and not transparent.

Conversely, Japan's characteristics are that it is "Weak and narrow".

In my view, the diagnosis of the problem is misplaced, i.e., that it is due to the cozy relationship between the government and the business world, which stems from the powerful authority of telecommunications and broadcasting administrations. Instead, it is the weakness and narrowness of Japan that has led to the current situation.

The Japanese government is weak. It is lax.

In the late 1990s, the government drastically eased regulations on fees and entry into the market, and with the exception of the airwaves, eliminated restrictions on foreign investment.

Even if there is a problem with a TV program, at most there is only a warning. There are absolutely no  recommendations to discontinue the program or fines given with unknown grounds, as is the case in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. 

I think this is the right administration for Japan.

If you make it independent, it will get out of control and its degree of transparency will lessen,

Since it is independent from politics and the government, it will not have to make the rounds of the Diet members' meetings, or attend Mr. Natsuno's council for regulatory reform.

For the bureaucrats, this is what they want.

All they do is regulate, so they will regulate hard.

If you look overseas, you can imagine that this will happen.

And the Japanese government is narrow.

The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications had logistics, finance, and insurance in addition to communications and broadcasting.

The postal service was detached when it became the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

in the 1998 administrative reform.

It merged with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Management and Coordination Agency, but there was no exchange, leaving only communications and broadcasting.

Weak and without regard for the problems, the same people have been with the narrow industry for 20 years. The distortion of this issue is the current problem.

A further problem is the fact that the policy agenda in this area has already changed.

The development of digital infrastructure for both telecommunications and broadcasting has been completed, and the development of a system of integrated techniques was completed 10 years ago. There is also the adjustment of mature markets such as reducing the price of cell phones, and local station management issues.

There is a shift from business administration to consumer administration.

The more important agenda includes matters such as the integration of IT and IP policies, data strategy, overseas platform support, personal information protection, security measures, and the digitization of administration, education, and healthcare.

These have been addressed by various parts of the government over the past 20 years.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications remains narrow and does not play a leading role.

This is also exposed as the problem of vertical division in the digital age.

Communications and broadcasting, IT, intellectual property, computers, copyright, security - these government offices are fragmented.

In addition, a Digital Agency will be created.

The separation of regulation and promotion is not a matter of further subdivision, but rather what is important is making them into a large group.

When creating a large organization, it is necessary to review the administrative structure.

Let's promote streamlining and further deregulation.

In terms of monitoring the market, the functions of the dispute resolution committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications should be strengthened.

In terms of program checks, the authority of the BPO, a private organization, should be strengthened.

For monitoring the administration, the Administrative Management Bureau and the Board of Audit should be strengthened.

We do not need an independent committee.

I don't think any sector wants an independent commission that leads to tighter regulations.

I don't see any sponsors to shoulder the policy.

This is also true of a pulse auction.

Even if there is academic and political discussion, it will not become a realistic plan unless there is pressure from industry, users, and foreign countries, etc., to make it happen.

I am proposing a "Ministry of Culture" for the next reorganization of ministries.

A strong government agency that integrates the administration of digital media, including telecommunications and broadcasting, into a large entity. The Digital Agency should be the nucleus.

The content is almost identical to the "Digital Ministry" (Ministry of Digital Economy and Society) proposed by the Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren) in 2018.

This has a policy sponsor.

I think it would be productive if, after the creation of the Digital Agency, this commotion develops into being the next agenda for an administrative organization discussion for large entities.