15 July 2024 – The Hindu

Modified Broadcasting Regulations in India

Introduction:

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) introduced the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill in November as one of several initiatives aimed at regulating broadcasting in a comprehensive way. The Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, which was introduced in 2007, was the most recent attempt to tackle this difficult undertaking.
• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a pre-consultation paper on “National Broadcasting Policy” shortly after the MIB made a reference to it. This was followed by the most recent version of a Broadcasting Bill.

Key elements of the measure include:

• In essence, the Bill unifies many broadcasting services’ regulatory requirements into one legislative framework.
• It aims to supersede various policy directives that now regulate India’s broadcasting industry, including the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995.
• The Bill expands its regulatory authority to include current affairs, digital news, and broadcasting of over-the-top content, which are currently governed under the IT Act of 2000.
• Together with other significant technical terminology that will be specified in the statute for the first time, the Bill offers thorough definitions for terms used in modern broadcasting.
• The “Broadcast Advisory Council” is established to “advise the central government on programme code and advertisement code violations,” and “Content evaluation committees” are introduced for self-regulation.
• For operators and broadcasters, the Bill offers legislative sanctions such as advice, warning, censure, or monetary fines. There are additional provisions for jail time and/or fines, but they are limited to particularly serious violations, such using a fake affidavit to get registration.

Prominent recommendations in the Bill:

• As is standard practice worldwide, it requires broadcasters and operators of broadcasting networks to keep records of subscriber data and submit it to regular external audits.
• The purpose of the bill is to provide a framework for assessing data sales and audience measurement. These two methods will introduce much-needed openness into the opaque value chain that makes up our nation’s cable and satellite television industry.
• There are no safeguards in the Bill at all to protect subscribers’ and audiences’ privacy in these kinds of data collection methods.
• As in many G-20 nations, the allowance to allow private actors in terrestrial broadcasting will promote competition against Doordarshan, the national broadcaster.

Issues with the Bill:

• The Bill’s inclusion of Over-the-Top (OTT) content providers in the definition of broadcasting services, as suggested by TRAI’s “National Broadcasting Policy,” is a significant source of worry.
• Interestingly, these actions coincide with heated debates around OTT player licencing that have been sparked by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), which was previously tasked with handling online media. The MIB now seems to be infringing on MEITy’s territory, which is a territorial slugfest common in nations with disjointed regulatory frameworks.
• The conditions under which news organisations and journalists who are not affiliated with big, multilingual television networks can carry out their professional endeavours are restricted by the Bill’s broadened definition of broadcasting.
• While an oversight body is beneficial for a news organisation, the Bill’s requirement for an internal body to self-certify news programming by creating a “Content Evaluation Committee” is dubious. Desirability is a factor in addition to price and practicality. It is advisable to leave the creation of internal supervision mechanisms up to individual news outlets, as their purpose is to ensure the integrity and veracity of the news.

Quiet in certain places:

• The Bill says nothing about ownership matters. Although the Bill is eager to outline an audience measurement methodology, it is not intended to quantify the degree of cross-media and vertical ownership. These two types of media dominance impede the variety of providers and, potentially, perspectives in the news market.
• As shown in TRAI’s document, the Bill makes no mention of the establishment of an independent broadcast regulator. This was initially mentioned in the 1995 “airwaves” ruling, followed by the Broadcasting Bill of 1997, and then again in the 2007 version of the Bill. Rather, this Bill establishes a “Broadcast Advisory Council” to investigate complaints from viewers and infractions of the Advertisement Code and Programme Code.
• This gives rise to two concerns: first, how this Council will be able to monitor and resolve the legitimate or motivated complaints made by more than 800 million TV viewers; and second, this body will not have as much autonomy as it should because the Bill gives the Central government the final say over the Council’s recommendations.

Several other worries:

• Furthermore, the Bill gives the government the authority to search broadcasters without giving them advance notice and to seize their equipment, most likely including that which is provided to their staff.
• In addition, content that violates the Programme Code and Advertisement Code may be removed or modified. This is in addition to already-in-place procedures like temporary transmission halts.
• Lastly, the Bill gives the government a great deal of discretion to limit broadcasting and its dissemination in the “public interest,” a phrase that is sadly left ambiguous. These invasive methods increase the susceptibility of reputable news sources to outside pressure groups. Whichever benches they have in Parliament, this should disturb those who will be debating the Bill’s legislation.

Way Forward:

• This Bill, which is the most recent in a line of efforts to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for media, has to keep its chance to safeguard press freedom and diversity. In order to achieve this, it must find a way to correct a few shocking omissions, examine its invasive commissions, and polish some potentially beneficial clauses.