Channel 69

That is the numerical connotation for "upside down". Channel stands for a television channel. That is perhaps the best example of television reception in Malta.

A few years back we were informed that there would be a major change in television reception and rather than have a forest of television aerials on the terraces, we would have a neat cable stuck into our living room, as cutely and delicately as a catheter in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

As if that were not enough, the law was amended, and flamboyantly proclaimed as a boon to the public, forcing every owner of a property to succumb to the dictates of a private company which had the right of encroaching on private property. This was the same as the passing of telephone lines or electricity. The Maltese had to accept cable television and hideous boxes on the façade of their homes.

Some did complain, but their complaint was to no avail. The law is the law, however harsh or unreasonable it may be.

Television aerials were dismantled, although recently I noticed that not all have decided to bring them down. Perhaps they are in a better position than those who have opted for cable television.

Monopoly...

If we speak of a free, competitive market, we cannot say that it applies in the field of television transmission. Competition cannot give the same service at a competitive price to the consumer, because the "protective laws" have laid down a perfect monopoly. Competition may come from another source, but the system is so complicated that people may find themselves in an accounting exercise to see which is the best alternative.

Until a few months ago, people were assured of transmissions from Europe without any barring. Now the monopoly has decided that there are certain programmes which have to be barred. To have access to the same programmes, then one must pay a higher monthly fee for the service, including the barred transmissions. I do not know what they pay in Tunisia, but certainly they can watch Italian television as much as they like and there are no excluded programmes.

What is rather strange is that the system has been planned in such a way that sports lovers are goaded into applying for the higher priced connection at a time when the World Cup is a few months away.

But let us be positive. Possibly this may bring back the joy of being together with friends to watch a football match. I remember when, as a small boy, I watched the 1958 World Cup on a small black and white television set installed at the entrance of a garage for car hire. There was almost the atmosphere of a mini-stadium. That will be our experience again, when friends invite friends, and brag that they have the full service.

But is this fair?

Think of it...

What I really do not like is that the measure taken by the government years back has not resulted in the removal of a forest of television aerials. That was the foliage of propaganda which was to hide the creation of a very lucrative monopoly.

As things stand, television stations which have or should have a substantial income from advertising, and I am not particularly referring to the Maltese stations, to receive a transmission from abroad the least sum one has to pay in a year is approximately Lm85. Apart from the licence fee which is paid to the local authorities for having a television in one's name, there is the monthly fee to the company. Approximately Lm7 a month mean something to an old-age pensioner.

What is worse is that the packages are concocted by the provider according to his whims. Certainly channels are hopelessly not popular but are added to the list without any meaning whatsoever. In actual fact every viewer decides on his preferences and much is discarded as not interesting or only marginally so, and very occasionally. You pay for trash as well. And the pricing is also in the hands of the provider, for whom "Providence" has provided an absolute monopoly.

My real temptation is to find a way to beat this monopoly. Some enterprising company must surely know of signal receiving apparatus which can beat this imposition, which is proving not to be for the benefit of the consumer, for the dissipation of information, for cultural enrichment and a wider view of the world we live in.

The blame is not to be placed solely at the doorstep of the company which provides the cable connection. If it has been given a virtually absolute monopoly, who can blame it?