[cr-india] CRs as shared infrastructure

Tue Jan 15 22:59:47 IST 2008

As usual, Parminder, you hit the nail on the head. 

But there are some issues with your Solomon-like solution. 

I don't think it was anyone's intention, starting this long journey against the worst possible odds (expecting common sense from a bureaucracy), that 'community radio' was about 'licenses' to be handed over to 'registered' NGOs. But that is exactly what the government has done, meeting every opportunity for honest development with the creation of perverse rules, designed to engender failure. The technology specifications are another thoroughly perverse decision, but for those of us with an interest in technology, this only continues decades of foolish meddling with technology by people least qualified to deal with it, much less dictate terms to the country's downtrodden citizenry.

Now, it would be very marvellous, if indeed, grassroots organisations could share infrastructure of the kind the government has envisaged, in the way you outline. Indeed, it is hard to see how otherwise a public good would not turn into an albatross firmly tied around the hapless NGO's neck. 

However, given the present structure, sharing could turn into a very serious liability. The 'owner' NGO would be entirely responsible for the content created by the partner NGO/grassroots organisation. Instead of being involved in direct content management, it would now be forced to act as policeman. What this ridiculous unnecessary make-work job would do to the hearts and minds of the local volunteers, being nurtured into 'development' through this intervention, makes the mind boggle. 

Quite different, I feel, will be the alternate scenario: thousands of 'independent' stations, either independently micro-broadcasting, or time-sharing of common infrastructure, licensed as such and not 'owned' by anybody in particular, other than a service provider. For this purpose, each content producer ('licensed radio station') could self-certify  compliance with a properly spelled out 'code of conduct' (not some vaguely worded feel-good words on paper. If the 'code' cannot be laid out in language that can be defended in an essay, never mind a court of law, no-one has a right to set it out as a minimum standard), and no NGO will be left holding the baby when the lights go down, because each producer will be independently responsible for each unit of content.

Whether to choose the former or latter course, in terms of technology, must be a decision made at the very tiniest local level, because that is where the trees lie, the mountain stands and the electricity fails to flow. One cannot divorce technology from the manner in which it is used, any more than one can divorce form from content.

Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com

----- Original Message ----
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: cr-india at sarai.net
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 2:09:54 PM
Subject: [cr-india] CRs as shared infrastructure

 Hi Ram and Ashish 

 >Since then, not even   a single  
 community/   NGO is 
 on air with its community radio. Today,
there are a mere 100 plus applications with the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting. 

 >There are several reasons for this.   First,
we do need to strengthen the awareness factor regarding community radio across
the country. 

 >Secondly, even if NGOs are aware of the policy, most organizations
are apprehensive to take it forward because of the cost factor.

 >Today, current patterns of thought appear to indicate that a
community radio station will cost at least Rs 7-8 lakhs. This would eliminate
most grassroots NGOs who would not know where to get this kind of support. But
the larger question is:   should they even
be spending this much money?

 >If community radio provides a voice to the voiceless, then whose
voices are we talking about? Which communities are we talking about? ………………

 >It is an urgent need today to identify and isolate the main
deterrents for people desirous of becoming CR practitioners. One of the main
deterrents is the high cost of technology, which is fast proving to be an
>impediment to the community radio movement and therefore giving a voice to
the poor

 I think the ‘utility factor’ is as, if not more, important than
the cost factor. And if we are speaking about the costs, for most grassroots
NGOs cost in terms of HR and other opportunity costs is as great as that of technology.
It is not only the technology decisions that are tough – and it is my opinion
that the CR discourse in India is still mostly centred on these issues – organizational
resources and focus issues may be more important and far tougher. How does CR
activity impact other activities that an NGO may be doing? Can it not potentially
cause a major ‘mission creep’ that may (or may not be) problematic
vis a vis core objectives of the NGO? Does it then work best through a process
of specialization where some existing or new NGOs become relatively specialized
as CR NGOs? But what does it do to local power relationships – between the
media NGO and other client NGOs (if they do become its clients) and the between
the media/ CR NGO and the community itself. We should remember that control over
media processes is a very important lever of power, and in absence of sufficient
checks is almost always abused. This situation is worsened by the fact that
there are considerable barriers to entry in the CR field in any local community
– license related barriers, technology skills barriers, cost and operation-to-scale
barriers, organizational focus related barriers etc. 

 When we consider plurality in media so important at all other levels,
it is as important at the local community level. If one just looks at how some
vernacular newspapers work it is easy to see how such danger can even be worse
at local levels. To avoid miscommunication, at this point I must assert that I
am as excited about CR possibilities and am here only pointing to the issues
that should attract our attention if we are to realize its real potential. 

 Once an NGO gets a radio license and puts up the necessary technology infrastructure
it sits over a tremendous amount of ‘local resources’ (14-18 hours
a day is a lot of broadcast time).  We need to ensure a fair allocation
and use of these resources, and I am not so sure that we can take it for
granted because it is really grassroots NGOs that we are talking about. 

 One thing that comes to my mind is to explore the concept of shared
infrastructure in the CR area. This way we can separate the technical –
that can be common and shared – from the social -  that remains
plural with a greater breadth of participation and ownership etc. A local CR
can be managed with a thin ownership structure that represents elements of the
community, including its organized groups, with full representation of marginalized
sections. The CR management structure should be encouraged/obliged through
license conditions and/ or otherwise (through soft self-regulation, for
instance, by forums like this one) to share the ‘common infrastructure’
of a CR – its transmission facilities, as well as, if possible, some other
levels of technology support (studio, field equipment etc) with local community
based groups. This will enable a lot of local groups to use the CR
infrastructure directly for their activities and – if we still have to
use mainstream radio language – making their own programs, rather than
responding to the reporters and editors of the CR owning organization. We know what
influence these mediators can exercise on the content. This alone will truly democratize
the radio technology – when all community based groups and sub-groups are
able to directly use audio technology to both to represent themselves and to support
their organizational activities, without the mediation of the ‘local
media organization’. Seeking a complete realization of this situation may
be a bit idealistic, but it is important to know that this is what we need to
tend towards so that the realized situation is closer to this than of a new
local monopoly.  

 Coming back to the issue of cost and utility, which really triggered
this email, such sharing of CR infrastructure also greatly increases its output
and utility, and makes the cost-benefit equation much more favorable. 

 A common or shared infrastructure approach to community radio therefore
appears a sensible thing both from the viewpoint of local plurality and of a
viable cost-benefit equation. Such approaches, including the ones that go by
the name of ‘open access’ approaches, are increasingly common in
all ICTs, especially when the implicated infrastructure has huge barriers to
entry. The dilemma that NGOs are facing today, which is described in your
email, Ram, as ‘most organizations are apprehensive to take it forward
because of the cost factor’ (along with ‘awareness factor’)
in my view may have both a much larger than technology/ cost context, and,
accordingly, probably a different direction of seeking the right solutions. (I
do notice that you too have described technology issue only as one of the
deterrent.)

 I am not saying all CRs should compulsorily be shared. We can experiment
with and promote both sole ownership and shared CRs. But the latter I think
have much greater potential. In earlier times use of radio technology did need
a lot of specialization and some amount of heavy, expensive and centralized equipment,
which meant that the program making itself had to be centralized. Digital
technologies today have democratized radio/ audio technologies, and radio
programs (to use the traditional term, I would much prefer to just say contextual
use of radio technology) can be made in the field by people with little amount
of skill building. They need not depend on a specialized radio unit, which has
the effect of centralizing the radio media, if only at a local level (in the
same way as ‘professional writers’ in earlier times monopolized the
‘written word’ based media). This possibility should be used the transform
the very nature of the CR format, as a common neutral technology infrastructure
enabling a wide range of diversely owned/ directed activity of using radio
technologies for local community and sub-community imperatives.  

 We need to investigate and discuss issues of participation, ownership
and organizational/ partnership forms in CR as much as issues of technology for
moving towards a full realization of the CR opportunity. 

 Apologies for the long posting, which was not my intention when I started
to write.

 Parminder 

 PS: And yes, we, as in my organization, IT for Change, will like to
participate in the open forum as well as the workshop. 

 .

 From: 
cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] 
 On Behalf Of  Ram Bhat

 Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008
5:19 PM

 To: cr-india at sarai.net

 Cc: Ashish Sen

 Subject: [cr-india] Invitation for
Technology workshop and CRF meeting

 Dear all, 

It has been a little more than a year since the Community Radio policy has been
released by the Government of India. Almost a year has passed  
 since the Community Radio forum was declared to take forward
the Community Radio movement in India .

 Since then, not even   a
single   community/  
 NGO is  on air with
its community radio. Today, there are a mere 100 plus applications with the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 

 There are several
reasons for this.   First, we do
need to strengthen the awareness factor regarding community radio across the country.

 Secondly, even if
NGOs are aware of the policy, most organizations are apprehensive to take it
forward because of the cost factor.

 Today, current patterns of thought appear to indicate that a community
radio station will cost at least Rs 7-8 lakhs. This would eliminate most
grassroots NGOs who would not know where to get this kind of support. But the
larger question is:   should they
even be spending this much money? 

 If community radio
provides a voice to the voiceless, then whose voices are we talking about?
Which communities are we talking about? 

It is an urgent need today to identify and isolate the main deterrents for
people desirous of becoming CR practitioners. One of the main deterrents is the
high cost of technology, which is fast proving to be an impediment to the
community radio movement and therefore giving a voice to the poor. 

 VOICES, a media
advocacy group based in Bangalore , is happy to
announce the "Technology for Radio" workshop to be held in
 Bangalore in the first
week of February. 

 The workshop will be preceded by a Public Meeting organized by the
Community Radio Forum that will focus on key issues that confront Community
Radio in the country on February 2nd, 2008. 

 The CRF meeting
will be followed by the Bangalore release of  
 "Other VOICES," 
edited by Kanchan Kumar and Vinod Pavrala of the Sarojini Naidu School of
Communication, Hyderabad .

 The Technology
Workshop will take place between February 3rd and 4th.  
 It will focus on both hardware
and software aspects of community radio, which will be demonstrated and
discussed in detail. 

 The opening session of the consultation will have discussions on key
implications pertinent to technology and community radio. It will be followed
by a release of the Technology Manual written by Ramkrishna from Ideosync and
produced by UNESCO. Subsequent sessions will include a guided tour of community
radio technology.   These will
feature demonstrations and discussions for all the different hardware
components of community radio- from production to broadcast.  
 This will include microphones, cables, studio set up, mixing
consoles, computer configurations, field recorders etc. 

 The final day of
the workshop will be dedicated to showcasing and discussing softwares and mixed
media models.   These will include
demonstrations of Free and Open Source Softwares like Audacity, Campcaster, and
Ubuntu Studio etc. We will also be demonstrating mixed media models, which have
been implemented on the field, which are working in sync and enhance existing
community radio systems. 

 Those of you who
are interested in participating in this workshop can contact us on voices4all at gmail.com . 

 A detailed agenda
will follow shortly. 

Best Wishes

Ashish/Ram

VOICES

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

YOU CAN SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY RADIO FORUM (India) BY JOINING AND TAKING
 AN ACTIVE PART IN ONE OF THESE NETWORKS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crforum-awareness  (Awareness building)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crforum-helpdesk (Offering help)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crforum-policy-advocacy (Policy advocacy)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crforum-techoptions (Technical options)

_______________________________________________
cr-india mailing list
cr-india at sarai.net
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india

      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20080115/4c209ade/attachment-0001.html 