MUMBAI:
The Broadcast Bill needs to adequately address the changing dynamics in a converging
world; and the sector regulator (the proposed Broadcast Regulatory Authority of
India - Brai) needs to be an autonomous body - one that is neutral and not managed
by the government.
These were the key points
that came through in an online debate on the proposed Broadcast Bill Draft 2006,
organized today by Indiantelevsion.com. "Broadcast Bill Darbaar", with
guest participants Sunil Lulla, CEO, Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd (Times
Now) and Subhashish Mazumdar, head - business development, IMCL/INEL (Hinduja
Media Group), saw a lively debate on the vexing issues impacting the industry
on account of the Bill. The chat session was conducted between 3 pm and 4 pm this
afternoon.Said Lulla, "The industry has asked the government to have an
open dialogue. As the industry and the government have a common interest - growth
of the business and protection of consumer interests." Both Lulla and Mazumdar stressed
on the need for technology neutral regulations and licensing. Referring to content
regulations, Lulla pointed out, "So how do you control one and not the other,
when content, be it in text, visual or audio form could be on any or all of these
platforms (terrestrial, cable - analogue and digital -, DTH, mobile TV, IPTV)."
An issue that constantly came up was about the pressing need for limits being
placed, particularly on the kind of content that news channels were dishing out.
The general argument being that the maddening race for TRPs has made news channels
break quite a few rules of decency. Therefore, why shouldn't the government regulate
such irresponsible behaviour? Said one participant, "There has to be
some broad guidelines and which are flouted day in and day out. If the industry
cannot show responsibility, blaming the government seems funny." To this
Lulla responded, "No one is blaming the government for a content code. The
code already exists. No one is opposing that. What we ask is for an autonomous
body to determine, build, set and regulate the code if it wishes too. That's all
the Industry is stating." On the side of the cable industry, the need
for a new license regime was an issue that came up frequently. "We should
also have competition among cable operators. Suppose I don't like to shift to
DTH or IPTV, which anyway is a distant option," one participant pointed out.
"Circles should be established as is the case in telecom (to break cable
monopolies)," said another.
Defending the cable industry, Mazumdar
said, "We are not against licensing per se, but licensing should be technologically
neutral and the basis of licensing is already there in cable, by the way. The
licensing regime needs updation like making sure of PAN etc. But no one would
like to have a licensing raj for an industry which is servicing 64 million households."
Both Lulla and Mazumdar came out strongly against the proposed cross media
restrictions. "For looking ahead, we feel these restrictions are meaningless.
If someone asks you to limit your market share by law or regulation, that is not
acceptable," Mazumdar said. Said Lulla: The Indian owned media industry
is a fragile industry. It does not have the resources of global giants. In today's
day and age, growth of industry and especially the media industry needs to be
encouraged. Hence the potential to apply brakes on what can be a significant business
in India, is self limiting. Industrialists who are funding these businesses should
be able to leverage their investments; hence cross media restrictions of the kind
one is hearing about will not create a growth oriented climate, when the rest
of the business climate is oriented towards growth. Neither could adequately
answer this poser though: "Why did the industry accept cross media restrictions
in DTH, and are now crying foul over the move?" In summation, Lulla
said, "This country has respected freedom of expression and the industry
is seeking it be respected. Regulation with dialogue which is inclusive and is
autonomous is always welcome." | 
