[cr-india] subbu vincent on private FM

[sajan venniyoor]

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/242b6812/attachment-0002.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
The following piece by Subbu Vincent appeared in Deccan Herald (Oct 5, 2004 - In Perspective). The idea of banning News on private FM radio, while permitting it on private TV channels, seems quite bizarre. I wonder which powerful intellect thought that one up. 

Sajan.


POLICY IMBALANCE SHOULD BE REVERSED
Govt does not allow news on private radio stations, allowing a monopoly
for AIR to continue

BY SUBRAMANIAM VINCENT

The vibrant voices airing music shows on 20 odd private FM radio
stations in our major cities do not reflect viability worries and
restrictions that otherwise haunt this industry. In 2003-04, a whopping
93% of private broadcasters' total revenues went towards government
license fees alone. Little wonder that two years in a row, stations have incurred hefty losses. Alongside this crisis, a critical policy
imbalance awaits reversal. Private radio stations are banned from airing news programmes, but television, print and internet operations are not.

But with the Cable TV regulatory issues hogging much of the limelight
recently, serious questions regarding the future of radio policy are
getting sidelined. Over six weeks ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority
of India (TRAI) sent its final recommendations on a new phase of
licensing for FM radio to the Broadcasting Ministry. Two prescriptions
stood out for their progressive elements, but the Ministry's responses
since then are indicating that government thinking on radio continues to be myopic.

VIABILITY CRISIS

TRAI asked the government to drop the bidding-driven process for setting radio license fees because it was this system that set the stage for the viability crisis. The regulator prefers a system more prevalent elsewhere in India and worldwide -revenue sharing. Under this system, stations will pay the government 4% of their gross revenue every year. Second, the regulator advised the Ministry to review its ban on private stations airing news and current affairs, currently a monopoly with All India Radio. In fact, TRAI stopped just short of asking for an outright removal of the ban.

In response, the Ministry rejected revenue sharing stating that it would suffer a decrease in fee collections of over Rs 100 crore. It further argued against revenue sharing saying that it could not be sure it was getting its fair share from the stations because it could not verify the revenues of every radio station. But realising that it had to address the viability mess, a week ago the Ministry reportedly offered to ensure low license fees during new bidding, contradicting its earlier concerns about revenue decreases from lower fees.

Revenue-sharing is more progressive because government fee inflows
remain proportional to how well stations are doing. With fixed licence
fees and static annual increases, this is not the case. The Ministry's
sore point that it cannot monitor station revenues is a weak argument.
Broadcasters are already paying service taxes on their revenues and
their half-yearly statements are available with the ST authorities. The
Ministry offers no evidence to show that radio broadcasters are a
special lot that need to be singled out for special scrutiny.

To TRAI's recommendation to review the ban on news, the Ministry has
said the ban will remain. And here too, the 'monitoring' argument made
an appearance. The Ministry feels it will be unable to monitor news on
local stations and that this constituted a grave security threat. But
are there grounds to allege that radio news broadcasters will be
particularly cavalier on sensitive matters when their television
counterparts have not been found against? In fact, anticipating this
misplaced concern, TRAI did point out, correctly, that existing laws may be used to curb violations of radio programme code.

WORRISOME INTRANSIGENCE

But beneath this professed inability to comb our airwaves lies a
worrisome intransigence that has afflicted every recent Central
government. For years, New Delhi has been leaden-footed on instituting
an independent broadcast regulator, preferring to arrogate this power to itself instead. A regulator with the mandate to create a level playing field is well suited to run a listener-driven complaints system to enforce the law on the air. This has been shown to be doable elsewhere. Second, in persisting with the current ban, the Ministry is only supporting AIR's continuing monopoly over radio news.

Legally, the Ministry's positions stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of 1995, where the Court asked New Delhi to open up the airwaves and appoint an autonomous broadcast regulator. The ruling warned that the right of private citizens to telecast is subject only to reasonable restrictions. There is little doubt that the Ministry's outright ban on private FM stations airing news is a monopolistic restriction and will be found so in the courts.

Perhaps it is too much to expect the Broadcasting Ministry alone to
shape a more open future for radio. The responsibility lies ultimately
with the Cabinet since in any case it must sign off on new policy.

For its part, the Cabinet needs to look at one plain contradiction. New
Delhi cannot have it both ways - holding off on instituting an
independent regulator and at the same time throwing up its hands over
the inability to enforce radio code. Indian radio desperately needs a
course correction.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct052004/edst.asp