(17 April 2008 6:30 pm)

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) is not happy with the number of responses it has received to its consultation paper on the entry of political parties, state governments and religious bodies in the broadcasting and cable network. The sector regulator has said that people have not realised the serious issues involved, including the Constitutional ones.

Addressing an open house meeting it had organised, Trai chairperson Nripendra Misra said that the scope of the consultation determines the federal nature of the country and its secular fabric, though many do not seem to have realised the significance.

"There is need to get more and more views so that what we finally recommend to the government of India gives a balanced view of the stakeholders," Misra said.

Misra minced no words to state that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting is under tremendous pressure from the states and political parties to allow them to set up broadcasting and cable network operations.

"It is important that the issues are discussed and a balanced view given to the ministry on such a sensitive issue," Misra said.

While Trai principal advisor (B&CS) RN Choubey unfolded the issues for consultation through a powerpoint presentation, he stressed on the Constitutional issues and said that they remained the same for both broadcasting and cable network operations.

Clarifying one important issue, Chaubey said that the reference to the lapsed Broadcast Bill 1997 was to raise the question whether some of the safeguards and disqualifications mentioned in that lapsed Bill could be still looked at as valid protection in the two sectors.

Though most of the participants in the open house were those who had sent their responses, some critical new inputs were made by some respondents.

Stressing that states should not be allowed to become broadcasters, Avnindra Mohan from Essel Group said that the Constitution had replaced the Government of India Act 1935, in which, under Section 129, states were allowed to run their own communication systems.

"This issue was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and then discarded looking at the issues of national security and other sensitive aspects. So right from the inception, the Constitution makers had deliberately kept broadcasting under Central subject," Mohan said.

The Supreme Court had repeatedly said that though there is mention of "communication" under certain sections as a state subject, it relates to only physical communication, like roads and bridges, but not information and views, he added.

Mohan also brought up the discussion of the US legislation of March 2008, called the "Zero Tolerance Ownership Fraud", which seeks to cancel the license of anyone who is found to have procured a license under a guise but is later found out to have a covert intention and identity.

One critical issue is the mention of the word "person" as a unit that would be liable to get a licence.The open house was asked this, hinting at the Arasu cable operations of the Tamil Nadu government. Since the state represents the people, will it satisfy the definition of a "person?"

MSO Alliance president Ashok Mansukhani told the Trai officials, "You cannot control broadcasting activity through the Cable TV Act, and everyone knows that," adding that "the Act does not recognise bodies like MSOs, or technologies like IPTV."

The situation is such that in many states channels that do not have downliking clearance are being shown on local cable networks.

Mansukhani, thus, made two demands: first, revisit the Cable TV Act and see whether it still holds water; and revisit the old disqualifications, which he said were quite outdated.

And while Mohan demanded setting up a Broadcast Regulatory Authority with licensing powers, Mansukhani demanded a Converged Broadcast Authority.

Cable Operators Federation of India (Cofi) president Roop Sharma said she favoured state ownership of broadcasting. It should be tightly regulated, ensuring that most of their content is educational and geared to financially weaker communities.

Sharma said that such communities are deprived by rapacious broadcasters and state-owned channels could provide vital entertainment to them at cheap rates.

Intervening in the discussion, Misra said that it must be remembered that under the existing laws, state governments have the authority to monitor content and advertising.

"In this context, we need to look into whether if the state governments now become lincensees of channels, they can objectively serve the role of monitors of content," Misra said.