Originally given the mandate to deal with the implementation of conditional access system, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India today rules over the entire Indian television industry

It began rather innocuously. The Delhi High Court was approached in December 2003 by Hathway Datacom and others to issue a writ of mandamus to ensure the implementation of CAS (Conditional Access System) for cable television networks as envisaged in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. After much debate, the Court ordered, inter alia, ?There has to be some regulatory body in terms of the synopsis of comments which have been filed by the respondent to see the implementation?.

The government of India had to find someone quickly and it did. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Trai as it is more popular known, was tasked with the mandate to ?make recommendations regarding terms and conditions on which the ?addressable system? shall be provided to customers and to specify standard norms for and periodicity of revision of rates of pay channels including interim measures, vide a notification dated January 9, 2004, which brought broadcasting and cable services within the ambit of telecommunication services.

Less than a month had passed from the High Court order to this notification, which should give you some sense of the thought that went into the decision.

Let?s be clear. Trai?s sole assigned task was to deal with issues surrounding the implementation of CAS.

That?s how the camel got its nose into the Arab?s tent.

Regulators, whether statutory or voluntary, typically have a very specific purpose of guarding the interest of the ordinary consumer against monopolistic or oligopolistic or predatory actions by the industry being regulated. They may deal, additionally but not primarily, with intra-industry disputes. Electricity regulators protect

consumers against producer and distributor utilities. Insurance regulators protect consumers against predatory insurers, stock exchange regulators protect against unscrupulous brokers and marketplaces, advertising regulators protect against exploitative, false or misleading advertising, and so on.

When Trai was first given the mandate to deal with it, there was evidently such a consumer defense agenda that drove the decision. The then Trai chairman, Pradeep Baijal went on record to say that once the last mile became competitive, Trai would no longer need to intervene actively in this market. He identified a milestone when this would be deemed to have been achieved. That milestone was the establishment of the second direct-to-home (DTH) platform. His contention was based on a simple criterion: Once the last mile, that is the connection at a consumer?s home, was no longer a monopoly but had multiple players vying for it, competition would be the guardian of consumer interest and Trai could move to a regime of forbearance.

This, alas, was as far away from the truth as black is from white. With each passing day, month and year, the Trai steadily, stealthily even, you might be right in feeling, crept its way to complete dominion over the Indian television industry.

A regulation factory was launched. With clockwork regularity and methodical purpose, the Trai hegemon began to expand its domain. A short step took it from CAS to analog networks. Another short step added DTH. Overseeing the interconnections between the B2B players?from broadcasters to platform operators came next. And from time to time, Trai also didn?t miss the opportunity of attempting to leap from distribution to content itself. Content owners and broadcasters thwarted these attempts time after time. It can, however, be safely said that Trai has shown itself to be tenacious, and retreat never means surrender.

Broadcasting, you will recall, was the ?additional responsibility?given to Trai, with telecommunications being its primary remit. Look what happened. A screen grab that lists regulations issued by Trai as listed on the page http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/RegulationUser.aspx?id=0&qid=2 (see chart) shows that of the nine line items listed, only four pertain to telecommunications. While it can be fairly argued that this is a terribly superficial view of the situation, the optics are startling.

The real fun begins when you actually click through to the individual orders listed. Again and again, you will find orders that govern relationships between broadcasters and multi-system operators (MSOs), broadcasters and DTH operators, MSOs and Local Cable Operators (LCOs); orders that seem unduly concerned about the health and well-being of businesses, even as Trai seems to remain blissfully oblivious of the interests of the final consumers; which is presumably what it was first brought in to defend and protect.

Take a look at the websites of the DTH operators. DTH operators price individual channels anywhere up to R35 per month. Did you know that the price at which the broadcaster (usually also the content owner) sells the channel to the platform operator is no more that R5 per month? The Trai seems to be interested not in the consumer interest but in protecting the economics of the platforms.

Unfortunately, the scope creep happened so insidiously that everyone was lulled into stupor and missed it all. There is a Latin phrase attributed to the Roman poet, Juvenal. ?Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?? Who watches the watchmen? I really couldn?t have put it better.

The writer is the former chief executive of STAR CJ Network India and heads the technical committee of Readership Studies Council of India (RSCI)