According to ASSOCHAM, the entertainment industry in India is said to be
around Rs 35,000 crore currently and is growing at 19% per annum. By 2010, it is
expected to be around Rs 85,000 crore.
The stakeholders however, see the industry as worth much more. The immense
reach and influence of television has been a constant source of concern and
encouragement, for the various stakeholders in the broadcast/entertainment
industry. The stakeholders are many, and they are an increasing tribe-from
politicians, government bureaucrats and officials of the industry, social
workers, broadcasters, advertisers, viewers, and the cable network operators. As
newer media and entertainment venues open, many more will rise to claim a stake
in this growing industry.
In the beginning there were only Doordarshan, All India Radio, and the Indian
film industry. (Amitabh Bacchhan has famously expressed his reservations with
the term Bollywood, and Bacchhan's knowledge of Indian cinema is considered by
many to be better than that of the Oxford English Dictionary.)
After years of tranquility in the Indian broadcast scenario, came the Iraqi
invasion of 1991, and with it the Indian masses woke up to the reality and the
possibility of receiving something other than Doordarshan on their television
screens.
But there was no clamoring among the masses to watch the video games shown by
CNN. Then, in 1993 came a cataclysmic event-the Hero Cup. The BCCI and the
Cricket Association of Bengal decided to make some money from these matches and,
in the process, prevented Doordarshan from claiming its till-now fundamental
right to telecast these matches, for little or no monetary consideration.
Doordarshan had claimed that its benevolent act of broadcasting a cricket match
was in the national interest.
The courts have since decided on the issue. The broadcaster's use of the
airwaves can no longer be allowed to go on unregulated, and ever since, the
government has been coming out with one attempt or another to put a
comprehensive broadcasting regulation in place, with little or no success.
Nobody should doubt the need for regulation. Even the harshest critics of
regulation will agree that regulations double up to provide the industry
protection from an arbitrary government. And in any case, it is the duty of any
sovereign government to regulate, and it cannot let the 200 different channels
to come out with disparate (even if well intended) codes for their programming.
A Good Beginning or too Late?
It is interesting to note that broadcasting has been around for a much
longer time than the cable television networks. But the Cable TV Act has been
around for about a decade now, and there are no signs that a comprehensive act
regulating the broadcasting industry is on the horizon.
SK Arora, secretary, ministry of information and broadcasting, says that the
current draft of the Broadcasting Bill is the 19th, and he adds that this is
neither the beginning nor the end of the process, but the process is in the
middle.
However, with the march of technology and the growing adoption of digital
broadcast technologies (IPTV and mobile TV to name a few), the broadcasting bill
could soon become redundant, at best. The worst-case scenario would be that this
law would extend to the new, digital broadcast technologies and the story of the
Telegraph Act holding sway over the modern broadcast industry could end up being
repeated all over again.
|
With about 200 different channels beaming across India, self regulation may be the only way out |
Therefore, before discussing what the bill contains, it may help to point a
few things that it does not. The bill deliberately steers clear of technologies
like IPTV, mobile TV, and any Internet-based broadcasting. The secretary assures
us that this is deliberate, because it would be a good idea to see how the
industry grows, and then look at what needs to be regulated and how. However, it
is a process that has to be expedited as broadcasting increasingly touches the
IT Act, Copyright Act etc, and if these acts are not rationalized with a
broadcasting code now, harmonizing them at a later date would be increasingly
difficult.
The simple reason for this disconnect appears to be that broadcasting today
involves at least the following: the IT ministry, the communications ministry,
I&B ministry, and TRAI. Barring Pradip Baijal's parting gift (to be fair,
among the many parting gifts) in the form of Recommendations on Issues relating
to Convergence and Competition in Broadcasting and Telecommunications; and the
I&B ministry's lead (albeit crippled for lack of enthusiasm in the other
ministries), the others have put broadcasting on the back burner. Even the TRAI;
Ashok Mansukhani, president, MSO Alliance, is constantly washing its hands off
on many of the issues that are brought to it, restricting its regulatory
activities to cable TV only.
The bill also excludes making guidelines for broadcast content, except in
broadest terms. However, it clarifies that a content code will have to be
arrived at.
And notably, it exempts public broadcasters from certain provisions that the
other broadcasters see as unfair. The foul is being called because the public
broadcasters are conveniently understood to Doordarshan and All India Radio. KVL
Narayan Rao, director, NDTV, raises a valid point on defining the public service
broadcaster. Since Doordarshan does commercial programming also, and the news
channels cover a lot of issues that are in the public interest-should all news
channels be given the benefits of public service broadcasters?
The Bill of Fair
The bill is not a lengthy piece of document, so we discuss only the
contentions aspects, the ones that have the industry up in arms (even if in
disparate voices).
BRAI: To begin with, there is a
proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India, and its very nature and
composition is already under attack. Its funding is supposed to be through
grants-in-aid from the government, while the licensing money, it will collect
will go to the Consolidated Fund of India.
As the secretary puts it plainly, the industry has come to be regulated
through various guidelines and regulations for cable operators and MSOs etc and
these are already being enforced by the government. So, most of what the bill
proposes to dispose though a broadcasting regulator is already being done.
CATV Vindicated: But, rather than
being a consolation, this is exactly what is sending shivers down the
industry's spine. The bill proposes to replace the Cable Televison Network
(Regulation) Act, and the experience with the Cable TV Act has not been
encouraging. In fact, so harried have cable operators been with this Act, that
they are viewing the proposed bill as being too soft, compared to the Cable TV
Act. Roop Sharma, president, Cable Operator's Federation of India demands that
the relatively soft 'bill' replace the Cable TV Act immediately, even as the
broadcasting industry is crying hoarse that the proposed bill is a draconian
piece of regulation. The powers of the seizure and confiscation are a case in
point, wherein any authorized officer can seize the broadcaster's equipment on
the suspicion that the broadcast is unlicensed, or if directions of the Central
government (issued in public interest) are not carried out. CATV has almost
resigned to this interference as being a part of its business. Sharma even
alleges that the bill is not being brought in to correct the inadequacies of the
Cable Act, but for the benefits of broadcasters. Why else, she argues, is the
bill so repugnant to broadcasters even though they saw it fit enough for CATV
operators for over a decade now? In fact, her association welcomes the bill, for
it will end the discrimination between broadcasters and CATV operators.
![]() for a balance and the freedom of smaller and local broadcasters needs to be preserved. Whether it has to be done by restraining the big player, is open to debate |
Like the CATV operators then, the bill proposes that all broadcasters will
have to obtain a licence. This licence cannot be obtained as a matter of right
and can be revoked for reason such as: the content being broadcasted does not
conform to the content code, or is not in the national interest. And since there
is no code yet, the program and advertising code of the Cable Act is proposed to
be continued.
Is this Cricket?: For historical
reasons perhaps, the bill mandates the sharing of 'certain sports broadcast
signals'. The government will have the right to declare certain sporting
events (national and international) as events of national importance and
licensed broadcasters will have to simultaneously share the live feed and radio
commentary with DD and AIR-without the advertisements.
Cross-media Ownership: Another
contentious issue is of cross-media ownership. The bill proposes that the
government should actively prevent monopolies across different media segments as
well as within the segments. It prevents content broadcasters from having more
than 20% share in the broadcast network operators, and vice versa. The icing to
the anti-monopoly stance of the bill is that there will be prescribed ceiling on
the number of channels that a content broadcaster can have. If this provision is
allowed, it is argued (as always), that the investment in broadcasting will
decline, especially as these investments have a very long gestation period. In
support of this provision, Sharmila Tagore, chairman, Central Board of Film
Certification, cites numerous examples where viewers have lost real choice as
almost all the channels are showing similar content. She says the primary
objective of media regulation in a democracy is to preserve and protect the
citizen's fundamental right to information and freedom of expression.
She quotes, “In many cases, not only is the content globalized, but also
the intent to shape local opinion to external agenda.” However, the question
to ask here is: Is it necessary (or even feasible) that global giants would be
countered by numerous small players? The counterpoint of course is that all
monopolies behave similarly in an open market. Obviously, the need is for a
balance and the freedom of smaller and local broadcasters needs to be preserved.
Whether it has to be done by restraining the big player, is open to debate.
The other problem with this ceiling on cross-media holdings is that by the
time this bill is enacted as a law, a lot of cross-holding patterns may have
emerged. Will the bill then have to make provision for forced divestment from
existing businesses? It is noteworthy that players like Zee, owner of Siticable,
are seeking 3G spectrum. And, how will it accommodate issues like triple play
and quad play, with even the Cable TV Operators of India eyeing 3G spectrum for
providing mobile TV and broadband.
Can Yan Cook?: Remember the
'Yan Can Cook' shows in the early days of STAR TV? And the early Sony TV
programming? Well, foreign channels would no longer be able to dump programs to
the Indian audience. Content produced in India must be 15% of their weekly
programming. While that is laudable, certain issues will need more discussion.
How will the channels, PTV or Nepal TV cope with this stipulation, or is it that
these channels will not be considered for licensing? The 'As seen on TV'
type of programs are already making their way to otherwise serious channels.
Will these programs count as 'local'?
You Live to Serve: The bill also
proposes that 10% of programming and commercial time will be for public service
programming, as specified by the government. The most disturbing thing here is
that this programming will not be dictated by the BRAI, but by the government.
While in the hands of anybody, such power is prone to abuse, in the hands of a
political party in power, it is sure to be abused, as in the India Shining
campaign. At least in the hands of the regulator, there would be a semblance of
objectivity in deciding such public service broadcasting regulations.
Alok Singh
aloksi@cybermedia.co.in