TRAI's selective perceptions
The regulator wants to keep government out of the business of TV broadcasting and distribution.
PADMAJA SHAW asks what damage state-run channels can do that the private channels are not already doing.
On December 28, 2012 the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) came out with its categorical recommendation that central and state government ministries and departments, companies and undertakings run by it, joint ventures with the private sector and entities funded by them should not be allowed to enter into the business of broadcasting and/or distribution of TV channels.
In December 2007, the MIB had sought recommendations of TRAI on the issue permitting the state governments, urban and local bodies, 3-tier panchayati Raj bodies, publicly funded bodies to enter into broadcasting activities which may include starting of a broadcast channel or entering into distribution platform like cable services (most of the quotes are retrieved from
The TRAI announced its recommendations on the issues raised by MIB on 12th November 2008. It rejected the idea of government bodies entering broadcasting and transmission citing that “in the interest of fair competition and level playing field in the cable sector and the need to ensure plurality of views over this important distribution platform and also considering the need to ensure that there is proper enforcement mechanism applicable to all the players in the field, the State Governments and their organs should stay away from distribution activities.”
The November 2008 argument was difficult to accept, as at the level of last mile supply of cable signal, in most localities there was cartelisation and a single supplier controlling an entire area. Competition was a myth till Direct to Home (DTH) technology began to expand. Meanwhile, the cable operators played havoc with TV channels by charging exorbitant carriage fee for prime band. This informal method later consolidated to spread to the DTH industry as well. Today, the carriage fee is accepted as the norm and has thrown many a channel’s finances out of gear.
TRAI also quotes the 1995 Supreme Court judgement which specifically urged the preventing of ‘monopoly of information and views relayed’ and provided the rationale for making the public broadcasting service sponsored by the central government free of government control (p13, item 19).
But the SC judgement was in 1995 when Prasar Bharati was yet to be notified and Doordarshan and All India Radio were still state monopolies. The satellite and cable industry was in its nascent stages. Would the same argument hold today when the market has completely transformed, with close to 900 channels that include some 400+ news channels and a large number of distribution enterprises and technologies?
TRAI also quotes the Sarkaria Commission to shore up its arguments about state governments’ entry into broadcasting citing ‘a temptation to use the media wrongly in party interest and not necessarily in national interest.’ (p13, item 18). But this is happening repeatedly in reality in any case, even as the state-run channels are kept out.
Should Trai use the bogey of state monopoly to prevent state agencies from entering broadcasting production and distribution? Especially in the face of the successful run that Lok Sabha TV has had? Is it not possible to run the state channels with an informational and educational mandate? What more damage can the state channels do that the private channels, owned or identifying themselves with politicians/political entities, are not already doing?
With the entry of politicians into cable distribution either directly or through proxy investments, there are innumerable instances of blackouts of crucial stories to protect their own reputations through control of news flow. Under the circumstances, the presence of a state-run distribution system that mandatorily carries all the channels would have served public interest better. The interests of the channels could also have been served by keeping the carriage fee structure within reasonable limits.
In its recommendations, TRAI quotes the following Sarkaria Commission observations:
“….In this country where, as we have emphasised elsewhere, parochialism, chauvinism, casteism and communalism are pervasive and are actively made use of by powerful groups, if uncontrolled use of media is allowed, it may promote centrifugal tendencies endangering the unity and integrity of the nation. In the context of the demand of some states to have their own broadcasting stations, it will be pertinent to quote the views of the Verghese Committee: ‘The propagation of a national approach to India’s problems, creating in every citizen an interest in the affairs, achievements and culture of other regions and helping them to develop a national consensus on issues which concern the country as whole, is of such supreme importance that any structure which inhibits this cannot be accepted.’”
If we look around, there are channels like the Jai Sri Ram channel in the old city of Hyderabad and some channels run by the Majlis-e-Ittehade Muslimeen (MIM, an Andhra-based party) that regularly transmit what could be construed as incendiary and would have been unthinkable under the Broadcast Code followed by the state broadcasters. It is strange that the Commission felt that the state-run institutions are specifically prone to misuse and that they will particularly retard the emergence of a national consensus. The regional broadcasting in the private sector today is nothing if it is not partisan, parochial, often promoting caste, linguistic and regional chauvinism to the complete exclusion of national and international perspective. In fact, some channels have been started with the explicit purpose of promoting such interests.
A very large number of channels all over the country are owned and operated by business houses or individuals having open political affiliations and promoting partisan causes. There is gross misuse of spectrum, a public resource, for promoting partisan causes and chasing profits. Can a few channels run by state-run departments for education and information overwhelm the cacophony of some 900 channels run by the private players?
Private enterprise failed to provide adequate competition at the last mile and left the consumer at the mercy of the local cable operator. Similarly, private players have often failed to maintain minimum standards of programming ethics. Whichever body is regulating them can also regulate the state-run channels. Or should the state-run institutions forfeit their right to free speech?
While rejecting the idea of allowing political entities from entering the broadcast segment in its latest recommendations, TRAI says:
…the Authority had made categorical recommendations in 2008 that political bodies should not be allowed to enter into broadcasting activities. The Authority had further recommended necessary disqualifications to be incorporated in the proposed legislation on broadcasting. It is worthwhile recalling those disqualifications:
Disqualification of political bodies. (a) A body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;
(b) A body affiliated to a body, referred to in clause (a)
(c) An individual who is an officer of a body, referred to in clause (a) or (b);
(d) A body corporate, which is an associate of a body corporate referred to in clause (a) or (b);
(e) A body corporate, in which a body referred to in any of clauses (a) and (b) is a participant with more than a five per cent interest;
(f) A body which is controlled by a person referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d) or by two or more persons, taken together;
(g) A body corporate, in which a body referred to in clause (f), other than one which is controlled by a person, referred to in clause (c) or by two or more such persons, taken together, is a participant with more than a five percent interest.” (P14-13, item 21)
Even with these disqualifications in public domain since 2008, a spate of channels specifically started by political parties and politicians entered the market before the 2009 elections all over the country. Prior to that, business houses running media houses also explicitly stated their political preferences.
Whether it is CPM and Trinamool Congress in West Bengal or for that matter Congress, YSRCP, Telugu Desam, TRS in Andhra Pradesh, channels and newspapers exist today to promote their views. Both the communist parties, CPI and CPM, are in the process of launching their respective channels, 99TV and 10TV, early this year in Andhra Pradesh. It will be interesting to see how many channels get the opportunity to exit and on what grounds.
The issue of permitting government-run institutions to enter into broadcasting and distribution sectors has been debated long. In the early 2000s, the Andhra Pradesh government launched a bouquet of five channels called Mana TV for providing educational and development programming to state-run schools and colleges and state administrative offices. Fourteen departments under the state administration were identified as participating departments and a centralised funding mechanism for producing programmes required for each department was evolved. One live interactive channel and four recorded channels went on air, broadcasting to the entire range of educational segments from primary to tertiary education and several development areas. The project operated as a registered society, SAPNET*, under the Information Technology Department of the government of Andhra Pradesh.
When the project was permitted, it was on KU Band that was not allowed in India at the time. Therefore, though SAPNET had the technical capacity to transmit the signals (with support from ISRO and BEL), it was defined as a closed network for educational, developmental purposes to legitimise its operations. The reception of programmes was through interactive sets installed in schools, colleges and Mandal offices all over the state. Three major public sector entities – ISRO, BEL and IT Department of the Andhra Pradesh government – are involved in its operations. The project continues to this day but is severely constrained by the closed circuit definition. A bank of educational and developmental programmes produced under the project reach a very limited audience.
Though the MoU was signed with ISRO for the transponder space in 2000, the project was registered and took off fully only in 2003. A similar project has been launched in Kerala since. The Mana TV bouquet of educational channels of Andhra Pradesh, which incidentally was the first state government to enter this segment, has been requesting the MIB for permission to make and transmit programmes since 2000. Later, the Punjab government also put in a request for permission. This has been refused repeatedly on grounds of a political argument.
Broadcasting and distribution under the state and central governments can be deployed for educational and developmental purposes, without any partisan content. In the case of educational broadcasting in India, whether it is the Countrywide Classroom project or Mana TV, distribution has been one of the biggest bottlenecks. The central government was quoting exorbitant carriage fees on satellite platforms it owned, which was beyond the capacity of an entity like Mana TV to pay. So it remained confined to the small number of sets installed in the early stages of the project, which were the only mode of reception possible. If the programming is made available on a general DTH platform or if the system is allowed to create a cable distribution that can provide its signal and have a commercial revenue model to sustain itself, a project like Mana TV can be turned into a success story with a significant contribution to the education effort of the state.
It is unfortunate if in the current scenario, the argument of political misuse is used once again to deny permission for educational efforts like Mana TV (and the Kerala project) from expanding its network access.
On page 9, item 11 of the recommendations, TRAI says blandly that: “The stakeholders participating in the consultation almost unanimously opined against the entry of the ‘State’ in broadcasting and distribution activities. The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), a representative body for Broadcasters in India, have stated that State-owned media, broadcast stations and distribution control should not be allowed as it would not be in overall public interest.” There is no explanation or argument to demonstrate how entry of the state-owned media can be a threat to public interest, while a free market environment with no restrictions is being provided to the commercial broadcasters.
TRAI also omits reference to the dangers of market control on broadcasting in the Supreme Court judgment even as it mentions the dangers of state control. The Supreme Court judgment recommends broadcasting that is free from both state and market control to serve public interest. TRAI has chosen to see state participation as a threat to democracy while it welcomes market participation. Since it is impossible to put the market genie back into the bottle, some participation from the state-run institutions controlled by elected governments which have some accountability to the people will not be all that much of a threat to democracy. It is private broadcasting that has proven to be unbridled – politically, economically and ethically.
*Disclosure: The writer was associated with SAPNET as Executive Director (Programmes) from January 2003 to December 2005.
Subscribe To The Newsletter