Why is it in the News?

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has taken a significant step in broadcasting regulation by releasing the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023. This bill is part of a series of efforts to regulate broadcasting in an integrated manner.

Context:

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India has proposed a draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023. The draft Bill provides for a consolidated framework to regulate the broadcasting services in the country and seeks to replace the existing Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and other Policy Guidelines currently governing the broadcasting sector in the country.

The Bill streamlines regulatory processes, extends its purview to cover Over-the-Top(OTT) content and digital news, and introduces contemporary definitions and provisions for emerging technologies.  It seeks to provide Content Evaluation Committees and a Broadcast Advisory Council for self-regulation, different program and advertisement codes for different Broadcasting Network Operators, Accessibility measures for persons with disabilities, and statutory penalties, etc.

Key Highlights of the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023:

• Consolidation and Modernization: It addresses a long-standing need to consolidate and update the regulatory provisions for various broadcasting services under a single legislative framework.
• This move streamlines the regulatory process, making it more efficient and contemporary.
• It extends its regulatory purview to encompass broadcasting over-the-top (OTT) content and digital news and current affairs currently regulated through IT Act, 2000 and regulations made there under.
• Contemporary Definitions and Future-Ready Provisions: To keep pace with the evolving technologies and services, the bill introduces comprehensive definitions for contemporary broadcasting terms and incorporates provisions for emerging broadcasting technologies.
• Strengthens the Self-Regulation Regime: It enhances self-regulation with the introduction of ‘Content evaluation committees and evolves the existing Inter-Departmental Committee into a more participative and broader ‘Broadcast Advisory Council’.
• Differentiated Programme Code and Advertisement Code: It allows for a differentiated approach to Programme and Advertisement Codes across various services and requires self-classification by broadcasters and robust access control measures for restricted content.
• Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities: The bill addresses the specific needs of persons with disabilities by providing enabling provisions for the issue of comprehensive accessibility guidelines.
• Statutory Penalties and Fines: The draft Bill introduces statutory penalties such as advisory, warning, censure, or monetary penalties, for operators and broadcasters. Provision for imprisonment and/or fines remains, but only for very serious offenses, ensuring a balanced approach to regulation.
• Equitable Penalties: Monetary penalties and fines are linked to the financial capacity of the entity, taking into account their investment and turnover to ensure fairness and equity.
• Infrastructure Sharing, Platform Services, and Right of Way: The bill also includes provisions for infrastructure sharing among broadcasting network operators and carriage of platform services.
• Further, it streamlines the Right of Way section to address relocation and alterations more efficiently, and establishes a structured dispute resolution mechanism.

Arguments in Support of the Bill:

• Revamped Legal Framework: This legislation signifies a departure from the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995.
• The Information & Broadcasting Minister lauds it as a "crucial law" designed to modernize the regulatory framework, aligning with the dynamic landscape of OTT, digital media, DTH, IPTV, and emerging technologies.
• Additionally, it incorporates comprehensive accessibility guidelines for the Divyangjan community.
• Empowerment of Broadcasters: The bill introduces provisions aimed at empowering broadcasters through self-regulation mechanisms.
• Striving for a delicate balance between regulatory oversight and industry autonomy is a key objective.
• Tailored Approach to Codes: The draft Bill permits a "differentiated approach" to Programme and Advertisement Codes across diverse services.
• This approach enables the tailoring of regulations to accommodate the unique nature of linear and on-demand content, providing content creators with increased flexibility and relevance.
• Equitable Measures: Monetary penalties under this bill are intricately tied to the entity's investment and turnover, ensuring fairness.
• Penalties are proportionally determined based on the financial standing of the entity, meaning that larger corporations with higher investments and turnovers may face more substantial fines compared to smaller entities with limited financial capacity.
• Inclusive Stakeholder Participation: The bill emphasizes stakeholder involvement through public consultation, a move applauded by the industry.
• The government's initiative to establish a unified law is welcomed, with expectations that it will streamline compliance and enforcement processes.

Arguments Against the Bill:

• Concerns about Control and Regulation: There are concerns surrounding whether the bill's emphasis is truly on public service or if it leans more towards expanding government control and regulation.
• Some worry that the bill might amplify government control over digital infrastructure and influence citizens' viewing choices.
• Ambiguities in Draft Provisions: Specifically, point 36 in the draft raises concerns about its broad and ambiguous language, providing authorities with the power to restrict content.
• Questions arise regarding the role of "authorized officers" working under government direction.
• Potential Impact on Minority Communities: Apprehensions exist that the bill could lead to the erasure or selective representation of Indian minority communities.
• The draft's vague language may be susceptible to exploitation, promoting a universal majority identity for India.
• Challenges with Cable Regulation: The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, initially targeting illegal cable operators, faced transparency issues due to a nexus involving operators, politicians, entrepreneurs, and broadcasters.
• The new bill fails to address loopholes and problems in implementing the existing Act, including conflicts of interest and opaque practices within the Indian media industry.
• Government's Trust Deficit: Critics point to the government's recent history with media regulation, highlighting a pattern of unfulfilled promises and questionable outcomes.
• The bill is compared to the controversial IT Rules of 2021 introduced for national welfare.
• Concerns about Oligopolistic Media Ownership: Amid debates on "cultural invasion" and "anti-national" programming, some argue that the connection between government officials and media houses may foster oligopolistic media ownership.

Notable Omissions from the Bill:

• Lack of Regulation on Ownership: The bill overlooks concerns related to ownership within the media landscape, mirroring the oversights in the TRAI paper.
• Despite placing emphasis on audience measurement methodologies, the absence of provisions regulating cross-media and vertical ownership is apparent.
• Cross-media ownership, previously identified as a threat to diversity by TRAI, consolidates media power, with interconnected interests of cable and DTH distributors, news broadcasters, and telecom companies potentially restricting the array of available news sources.
• Absence of an Independent Broadcast Regulator: The bill remains silent on the establishment of an independent broadcast regulator, a concept previously endorsed in the 'airwaves' judgment of 1995, the 1997 Broadcasting Bill, and reiterated in the 2007 iteration.
• Instead of proposing an independent regulator, the bill introduces a 'Broadcast Advisory Council' tasked with addressing viewer grievances and violations of the Programme Code and Advertisement Code.
• Concerns arise about the Council's ability to handle grievances from a broad audience and questions surface regarding its autonomy.

The Way Ahead: Urgent Requirement for Conflict of Interest Regulation

• The Indian government has not effectively managed conflicts of interest in the media industry, especially the connections between MSOs (Multi-Service Operators), politicians, and vertical integration.
• As this has led to a loss of trust, a regulation on conflicts of interest is the need of the hour.

Conclusion

The essence of Broadcasting Regulation goes beyond mere compliance; it revolves around fostering an environment conducive to growth, and innovation, and ensuring fair access to communication services. Striking the right balance between regulatory oversight and industry autonomy is crucial for India to strategically position itself for sustained success in the rapidly evolving telecommunications sector.