Big Brother Doordarshan
Doordarshans demands are specious on two counts. Its official line is that its terrestrial network covers 90 per cent of Indian homes whereas cable and satellite channels have a far more limited coverage. Ergo, millions of fans will be deprived of the privilege of watching the Indo-Pakistani series. In purely commercial competitive terms, this is no argument at all. Somebody has to pay for the right to view an event. Nothing prevented Doordarshan from outbidding ESPN and then using its enormous reach to recoup its costs and more through advertisements. As a pay channel, ESPNs selling point is the exclusivity it offers in the coverage of sporting events. The huge sums it pays out for exclusive broadcasting rights are in the same category as Doordarshans investments toward increasing its reach and revenue. If it were to allow Doordarshan simultaneous broadcasting rights, why should people be tempted to pay extra to subscribe to the ESPN channel? The second argument against Doordarshan is its questionable
concern for the viewer. Despite being in the business for over 20 years, the government-owned network is still to demonstrate its ability to handle such events with any degree of professionalism. The recent coverage of the cricket series in Sri Lanka and of the Davis Cup ties are cases in point. How the viewer was served when Doordarshan had a total monopoly is a part of history.
Doordarshans ability to raise such illogical demands basically stems from its unique position as competitor-cum-regulator. Cable and satellite channels find it difficult to consistently turn down such requests because Doordarshan can harm their long-term interests in the sub-continent. India is emerging as one of the most buoyant markets in Asia. So there is need for an independent regulator to arbitrate between channels. Even information minister Jaipal Reddy has voiced the need for such a regulator.
Doordarshans desire to muscle in stems from its insecurity in the face of competition. Despite its incomparable network, its revenue growth in the nineties has been far slower than the eighties. Given the growing pressures, the question is whether the government needs to be in television at all. One profitable but radical solution for Doordarshan could be to retire from programming altogether and becoming a rentier of channels. Today, the government-owned monopoly has the technology to create 85 channels which could comfortably help it earn roughly Rs 500 crore each year. This could take care of a suitable return to the government on its investments. Doordarshans indispensability rests solely on its role of doorkeeper against cultural invasion from the West. Viewers should perhaps have a say in giving it such a role of protector of the national ethos.