IBF seeks level playing field

Our eFE Bureau in New Delhi

More than a month after the Communications Convergence Bill 2001 was introduced in Parliament, broadcasters are demanding a level playing field and their rightful share in the Convergence pie. The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which is an apex body for broadcasters, has put down its recommendations on the various aspects of the Bill in a paper, and has sent the same to the parliamentary standing committee.

Content in electronic media, which has been a bone of contention for the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, is again a talking point in this paper. ‘‘There should be at least five members representing the broadcasting industry forming the content bureau in the proposed Communications Commission of India (CCI),’’ according to the IBF paper. Also, there should be an equal representation from telecom and broadcasting sectors in CCI, it has said. The Content Bureau, the paper adds, should include a representative of the IBF.

On the provision of services, the IBF paper says that the difference between licensing and registration has not been spelt out. The paper suggests that Section 4(1), which prohibits broadcast without a licence or registration, should be reworded so that only registration is required for existing broadcasting companies.

Again focussing on level-playing field, the paper says that the person heading the CCI should not only be a person of eminence, but should have sufficient knowledge of the communications and broadcasting industries. This person should not be someone with merely judicial background since the position requires a different set of talents and skills, the paper says. Also, a majority of the whole-time members of the proposed CCI should be from the industry, it has suggested.

Another issue concerning broadcasters—programming code—has been taken up prominently in this paper. It says that Section 20, which provides for the CCI to regulate and specify programme codes and and standards, is not required since content is variable across media. It adds: ‘‘IBF members strongly feel that IBF being an organisation of broadcasters should form an independent self-regulated internal content regulatory mechanism and code of conduct for the broadcasting sector.’’

Again hinting at freedom of choice for broadcasters, the paper goes on to say that there is no necessity to distinguish between satellite broadcasting and subscription broadcasting since the choice (free versus pay) is a business decision and should be left to the company.

Similarly, the paper recommends that Section 28 (2) ii, which states that a service provider must endeavour to provide a suitable proportion of programmes of indigenous origin, should be deleted. Rather, commercial consideration must dictate the nature of service and content, it says.