Report of the Broadcasting Authority on a Suitable System of Cable Television for Hong Kong
Introduction
On 26 July 1988, the Executive Council considered memorandum XCC(88)105, and the Council Advised and the Acting Governor ordered, inter alia, that -
2.
pursuant to section 9(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Authority Ordi- nance (No. 49/87), the Broadcasting Authority should be asked to conduct an enquiry into a suitable system of CTV for Hong Kong and the legislative, technical and regulatory framework for its implementation, including a detailed examination and assess- ment of of all CTV proposals submitted, and to report the conclu- sions of the enquiry to Members.
The Authority has carried out a detailed examination and assessment of of all CTV proposals submitted in response to the Government's invitation on 28 February 1989. This Report comprises the conclusions reached by the Authority following that examina- tion. It does not cover the matters of the legislative, technical and regulatory framework for the implementation of the CTV system, which remain to be considered in a later phase.
The enquiry
3.
In response to the Government's invitation issued on 19 September 1988, propos- als were received from four parties on the deadline, 28 February 1989. The parties which submitted proposals were -
4.
Hong Kong Cable Communications Ltd (HKCC)
Hutchison Cablevision Ltd (HCV) Supertech International Corporation Windows Television System Ltd.
On 1 March, Members of the Authority were informed of the proposals which had been received, and were invited to make arrangements at any time to inspect the proposals. Before Members started detailed examination of the written proposals, the four parties who had submitted them were each invited to make a 45-minute presentation before us on 13 April 1989. These presentations, which included written and verbal descriptions and audio-visual aids, were taken into account in our examination of the proposals.
5.
On carefully considering these presentations, and on the basis of an initial examination of the written proposals received on 28 February, we formed the conclusion that two out of the four sets of proposals were incomplete in the information presented. It is our view that unless a large volume of additional data were submitted to us after the 28 February deadline set by the Government, it would be quite impossible to regard the incomplete bids as conforming with the requirements set out in the invitation to submit proposals. To accept substantial submissions after the deadline would, in our view, be unfair and improper. Accordingly, we advised the Administration that, while no bid