|
WHAT THE PAWAR COMMITTEE
SHOULD CONSIDER FOR BROADCASTING REGULATION
As the parliamentary committee
headed by Sharad Pawar deliberates on the Broadcasting Bill,
it's time to take a view of the whys and wherefores of this
important piece of legislation-to-be.
The first question that begs
to be answered is: does the government need to focus on
broadcasting when key infrastructure areas such as power,
telecom, roadways have been addressed at best poorly? Shouldn't
the government first give direction to these life-support
systems of the country first? Of course, broadcasting --more
specifically satellite and cable television --has hit us
like a whirlwind. Today the television sector leaves its
finger print upon more than two million people either in
programming, satellite and cable TV, ad agencies, TV manufacturers
etc. So it definitely cannot be ignored but does it have
to be the given that much importance? Some may agree in
the affirmative because of its vast reach and the cultural
influence it can have.
The second query that needs an answer is: do we need legislation?
The answer: indeed we do. Two years ago, the supreme court
said that an authority to regulate the air waves has to
be set up, and that air waves are not the sole property
of the government. Doordarshan and All India Radio are crying
for autonomy. Cable networks are popping up on India's landscape
without any regulation excepting that they have to carry
two DD channels, follow equipment standards, and follow
an advertising and programming code. Foreign originating
channels are beaming in without much local controls. New
technologies such as direct-to-home digital television are
coming at us with great speed.
So regulation is needed. But what kind? Will the Broadcasting
Bill in its current avatar --with limits on foreign ownership,
cross media ownership and cross service restrictions --do?
No! The bill has tried to hard to please all and has ended
up pleasing none. The Indian lobby is unhappy about cross
service and cross media limitations. The foreign lobby is
sore about both of these and additionally about limits on
ownership. While the government is under pressure from the
foreign lobby to ease these, it should not. China does not
bow down to them; in fact everything is worked out according
to its terms.
Even a state such as Singapore
limits foreign equity to 49%. And a plethora of channels
is operating over there: right from MTV to ABN to TNT &
Cartoon Network. Even though the managers of these channels
in India insist that should the limits come true they will
have to pack up and go, a school of thought goes that the
government should call their bluff. Of every 10 channels
that are moaning today eight will chose to stay put; two
will bid good bye. And even the two who flee will return
at some future date when the government will loosen the
controls further.
Another option the government should choose is to allow
100% foreign owned marketing and distribution companies
while putting a cap on uplinking companies which will have
to be set up in India. A phased relocation plan to India
for uplinking should also be drawn up for each of the channels.
As far as DTH goes, the government
should continue with the status quo and not clear any projects,
goes the same school of thought. Continue with the ban on
Ku-band dishes and add C-band to that list. At least in
the near-term. Let the government first clean up the unorganised
cable infrastructure that has come up and focus on franchising
territories. Let the government also work closely and carefully
on liberalising Doordarshan and All India Radio.
The school of thought further
clarifies that cross media and cross service holdings should
stay. "It would be best that the government should retard
the growth of broadcasting," says a proponent of that school
of thought. "It can wait for five years or so. What needs
more attention is the infrastructure area in terms of power,
water, roads, telephones etc..Nothing will be lost. Actually,
the television inustry might well benefit as the competitive
environment will become less so and many more weak channels
today --most of them Indian -- may well be strengthened
for the future."
Article
appeared in a local newspaper in June, 1996
|
