The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s decision to hold back the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024, is welcome news.
Television broadcasting, as we know it, has been in genteel decline for a few years now. From about 200 million homes (960 million people) in 2019, it now reaches 176 million homes (845 million people). Going by the annual FICCI-EY report, the business earned Rs 69,600 crore across advertising and pay revenue in 2023; down from Rs 78,700 crore in 2019. The last few years have been marked by consolidation — Disney acquired Star India, Reliance took a majority stake in Viacom18 and later merged it with Disney. As it matures, television will settle down at 100-125 million homes (480-600 million people), with more than half of them on the state-owned DD Freedish. Note, all of this refers to linear pay television. There is lots of growth beyond it — in free television, on smart TVs, and in streaming.
Indian television began with some great shows — Buniyaad, Antakshri, Banegi Apni Baat, Saans, among others — in the eighties and nineties. Yet, it never hit a creative high nor did it reach a billion people as the largest media after radio. Despite being the second-largest TV market in the world, India remains one of the smallest in terms of revenue, per unit realisation, and profit compared to similar markets like Brazil.
There are several reasons for this — the biggest being price regulation. It came into force in 2004 after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) was appointed as broadcast regulator. Its relentless bid to regulate price, ratings, and even the agreements between trade and broadcasters meant linear TV never had its HBO, Sopranos or Game of Thrones. All attempts at differentiated, premium programming on linear television such as Star One, failed. The daily soap factory, geared towards maximising eyeballs (and therefore advertising), which began in 2000 with Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, continues to this day. Even after streaming came in 2016 and took off in 2018, Trai kept issuing tariff orders. This, in a market where video can be watched through three competing technologies (cable, satellite, internet), on myriad devices (TV, phone, laptop), with a wide range of pricing options from free to hybrid to premium for online video.
Now imagine, if the same regulations that stymied the growth of broadcasting are applied to OTT, social media, and online publishing. It is against this background the Broadcast Bill needs to be viewed. For too long, only the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, dealt with TV, even while policies, guidelines on uplinking, downlinking, equity caps, foreign investments have been issued. The last big change was in 2011, when the Cable Act was amended to enable digitisation. Therefore, it is a good idea to have an overarching legislation that is up to speed with new ways of watching video.
The first draft of the Broadcast Bill came in November 2023. In July this year, the ministry invited comments to the second draft of the Bill after assimilating feedback on the first one. Not surprisingly, there was a outcry. Earlier this week, the ministry announced the Bill will go through another round of consultations till October 15.
There are three issues with the Bill. One, an obsession with force-fitting streaming/online video into the same regulatory slot as broadcasting. It keeps talking of “OTT Broadcasting”. However, as lawyers, media firms, and others argue, streaming is an on-demand, one-to-one way of watching shows like Anupama or Heeramandi. It is a time-shifted choice we make, unlike linear TV where you watch a show at a fixed time on TV. Many developed countries, the UK, Singapore, Germany, do not put OTT in the definition of broadcasting, even if both are under the same legislation. They are regulated separately. In South Korea, a highly digitised country, OTTs are regulated under telecom laws.
Two, its approach is somewhat paternalistic — there is a lot of emphasis on penalties and apologies, but very little on what the Bill seeks to do. A basic reading makes it clear that it aims for complete control over everything that we watch or read online. A regulator in the UK, where Ofcom, an industry-funded body, does a decent job, once told me that any new piece of regulation/policy/guideline it considers goes through a cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost of making this change versus the cost of not making it? Does a new piece of legislation damage or benefit the ecosystem, consumer choice and business? There is no analysis on what the Bill seeks to or could achieve.
Three, unlike the Cable Act, this is a very difficult Bill to read. It took hours to make sense of it.
Online video has brought diversity in our watching, and has unleashed the creative prowess of India’s dream factories, which are now making Emmy-winning shows like Delhi Crime and superbly crafted ones such as The Family Man, Paatal Lok or Rocket Boys. In news, it has given a voice to many Indians who were getting left out of the mainstream news ambit. In information, platforms like YouTube, Reels, WhatsApp and LinkedIn have democratised both creation and access.
A Bill that seeks to force-fit a new way of watching video, on to an old-fashioned one — especially one that suffered from a lack of farsighted regulation — is bound to pour cold water on free speech and expression across the board. This will lead to a lack of diversity and dampen a business that has been growing well.
In 2023, online video made over Rs 30,000 crore in ad and pay revenues, according to Media Partners Asia. By 2028, this is expected to reach Rs 57,400 crore. This growth is predicated on a free market without price or other regulations that could cripple choice and the ease of doing business. Both will be a reality if the Bill is passed in its current form.
As the industry prepares another round of responses, the ministry must ask itself whether it wants online video to follow the same path as linear television. If not, then this Bill needs to be reconsidered from scratch.
https://bsmedia.business-standard.comtwitter.com/vanitakohlik