C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\REPORT\NEWFOL~1\10.htm

The Communication Convergence Bill, 2001

REPORT

Introductory

The Communication Convergence Bill, 2001 was introduced in Lok Sabha

31 August, 2001. The Hon'ble Speaker referred it to this Committee for consideration

and report. The Bill is stated to be an enabling legislation, designed to fully harness the benefits of the converged technologies and the emerging technologies of the future to meet the growing social and commercial needs. It tends to set up a single

uper Regulator - Communications Commission

India (herein after referred to as the Commission) with wide ranging powers to deal with the carriage and content. The

members of the Commission are to be appointed- on the recommendation of a Search Committee.

2. The Bill proposes to combine and bring under the purview of the Commission the power of licensing and registration and the regulatory mechanisms for the telecom, information technology and broadcasting sectors. It is also proposed

to replace large number of categories of license with the following five broad categories to enable service providers to offer a range of services within each

category, namely:-

(a) to provide or own network infrastructure facilities.

(b) to provide networking services.

(d) to provide content application services.

(e) to provide value added network application services.

3. The Commission is proposed to be empowered with dispute resolution functions. It is also proposed to set up an Appellate Tribunal to be known as Communications Appellate Tribunal, to hear appeals against decisions or orders of the Commissioned order of civil liability imposed. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised by it Benches, which shall ordinarily sit at Delhi and at such other places as may be notified. The Appellate Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and not more than six Members.

4. The Bill proposes to repeal the following legislation, namely:-

(a) The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

(b) The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.

(d) The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

(e) The Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995.-

5. Keeping in view the importance and the repercussion of the- Communication Convergence Bill in future on the country as a whole, the Committee invited memoranda on the Bill from, the public in general and experts/professionals, organisations/associations representing Industry, Commerce, telecommunications, electronic media and films etc. in particular for which the text of the Bill was hoisted at the website www.parliamentofindia.nic.in. Copies of the Bill were sent to Leaders
of the political parties in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, to the Chief Secretaries of different State Governments, to Supreme Court Bar Association, High Court Bar Associations, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), leading Chambers of
Commerce and Industry in the country, Media Agencies and leading National Newspapers, I.T. Companies and major Private Telecom Companies for their views and suggestions, if any.

6. Numerous memoranda/representations were received. The committee invited several organisations/Associations/Institutes/ Professionals/Experts/Individuals for oral evidence. In all 21 sittings of the Committee and 9 sittings of Sub-Committee (which was constituted by the Chairman for an in-depth study of the Bill and for its Report) were held in which the representatives from various Associations/Organisations/Institutes appeared before the Committee to tender evidence. Besides, representatives of the Department of. Telecommunications, Department of Information Technology and Ministry of Information & Broadcasting also appeared to clarify certain provisions of the Bill.

7. There were divergent views on the various clauses and timing of the Bill. A large number of witnesses including representatives of business organisations like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Indian Broadcasters Foundation (IBF) and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad were of the view that the Bill was brought too early and it was not the right time to have such an enabling and restrictive legislation. They held the view that Information Technology industry has made tremendous progress simply because of the fact that there had been no intervention from the Government, Individuals and Corporate responded to the technology and market conditions without any interference from the Government. Moreover, they believed that technology had been changing so fast that nobody could predict the shape of things to come in IT industry. These witnesses pleaded that this was not the time to have such an enabling and restrictive legislation. Shri F.S. Nariman, M.P. who headed the Sub-Committee (set up by the Ministry of Communications) on draft Communication Convergence Bill has been of the view that for smooth functioning of convergence, there should be convergence of concerned administrative ministries and that Convergence Commission of India formed under the Act should better consider itself as "facilitator" instead of "regulator". The representatives of Confederation of Indian industry (CII) stated, "This is not the time to have such an enabling and a restricted legislation". The representatives of Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) too stated, "It is too early in the day to have a bill of this kind". The representatives of Internet Service Provider Association of India (ISPAI) stated, "Looking at certain apprehensions in so many clauses, Bill would not serve the purpose of Internet Service Providers". The representatives of Indian Institute of Management (IIM, Ahmedabad) said, "Bill is little too early". A Retired Member of Telecom Commission also opposed the Bill. The Technical Advisor on IT to Government of Andhra Pradesh was of the opinion that for regulating content there was no necessity of the Bill.

8. After a close perusal of the depositions of experts/professionals, organisations/associations and individuals in the field of telecommunications and electronic media, the Committee finds that opinion is sharply divided about the desirability of having a Communication Commission of India at, this stage. Many of the prominent witnesses apprehended that instead of being a facilitator in the growth of Information Technology, the Commission may turn out to be a regulator and may decelerate the growth of the industry. They are of the view that this sector should be left alone to develop itself by self-regulation. They asserted that the Government intervention is not at all desirable at this stage. However, it is for the Government and ultimately for the Parliament to take a decision but as the Bill has been referred to the Committee by the Hon'ble
Speaker, it proceeds to examine the Bill as follows: -

9. - Clause 1 is regarding short title, extent and commencement which states that "this Act may be called the Communication Convergence Act, 2001".

10. Some of the non-official witnesses pointed out that in the long run, it will be communication which will be dealt with and the word 'convergence' may lose its significance and above all it is a law on Communication and not Convergence. The Preamble also reads as "A Bill to promote, facilitate and develop in an orderly manner the carriage and content of communications". The Committee, therefore, pointed out to the Departmental representatives that after a certain time frame, the word 'Convergence' would look superfluous, so why not the word 'Convergence' be deleted from the title of the Bill.

11. In reply, Secretary, DoT stated that the Department wanted to focus on Communication and Broadcasting which are the essential features of the Bill. He further stated that the word convergence was incorporated in the title to bring out that convergence, was the focus of the Bill.

12. Secretary, I&B supplemented that if the word Convergence is not added and it is called Communication Bill, then there will be confusion that the Press is also covered which is not the intention.

13. The Committee is of the opinion that 'convergence' is already a reality and in view of the long-term relevance of the provisions of the Bill, the enactment should be termed as the Communication Act to avoid redundancy of the term 'convergence' later. The Committee has also, in the following paragraphs, recommended specific exclusion of the Press from the operation o' the provisions of this law. Hence, the Committee recommends that in clause 1 Communication Convergence Act, 2001" be substituted with the word:- "The Communications Act, 2002".