What's New

REGULATING OTT: DRAFT BROADCASTING REGULATION BILL

Relevance: GS2–  Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Why in the News?

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) released the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 on November 10.
• The proposed bill aims to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995 (CTNR Act, 1995), consolidating regulations for broadcasting, OTT, digital media, DTH, and IPTV.
• Anurag Thakur, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, stated that the Broadcasting Services Bill, 2023 aligns with the Prime Minister’s vision for “ease of doing business” and “ease of living.”
• The bill’s introduction follows the controversial IT Rules 2021, prompting questions about whether the government’s vision is truly focused on “ease of control and regulation” rather than national welfare.

CTNR Act, 1995:

The CTNR Act aimed to address issues related to illegal cable television networks and regulate content and advertising on television.

• Mandatory Registration and Doordarshan Transmission:
  • Cable providers were obligated to register under the CTNR Act.
  • Mandated transmission of two Doordarshan channels and adherence to content regulations.
• Controversial Content Regulation:
  • In 1995, the MIB, similar to current sentiments against streaming platforms, criticized STAR TV’s programming as a threat of “cultural invasion.”
  • Despite this, contemporary Indian television reflects a blend of media languages (like Hinglish) and foreign programming formats from Western broadcasters.
• Impact on Indian Television Programming: 
  • The hybrid nature of Indian television today, incorporating Hinglish and foreign formats (e.g., Bigg Boss, Kaun Banega Crorepati), is attributed to the influence of Western broadcasters since the CTNR Act’s inception.
• Ineffectiveness in Addressing Illegal Cable Operators:
  • Despite the original intent of the CTRN Act (1995) to regulate illegal cable operators, it fell short in providing transparency regarding their actual numbers in the field.
• Nexus of Control:
  • The lack of transparency resulted from a nexus involving operators, politicians, entrepreneurs, and broadcasters who chose to control television transmission.
  • Multi-System-Operators (MSOs) like SitiCable, Hathaway, and InCable operated as local franchises, controlling exclusive distribution in specific territories.
• Rivalries among MSOs:
  • Intensive rivalries among MSOs led to collusion with the underworld and local politicians to protect and expand their cable businesses.

Government Intervention and Amendments (2003):

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, led by Sushma Swaraj, amended the CTRN Act in 2003. 

• Mandatory submission of reports by cable operators to the government on subscribers, subscription rates, and programs in basic service tiers was introduced.
• The amended act emphasized transparency through subscriber reporting and set-top boxes offering channel choices.
• Government imposed a maximum price limit on subscription rates, attempting to curb exploitation.

Issues with the Implementation

• Worrying Regulatory control on Broadcasters: 
  • Despite regulations, MSOs, broadcasters, and operators continued bundling preferred channels, prioritizing their interests over consumer choice.
  • The CTRN Act (1995) and its 2003 amendment showcase the government’s regulatory efforts to control information and communication networks.
• Neglect of Conflicts of Interest:
  • The impact of the nexus between MSOs, politicians, and the vertical integration of broadcasting and cable distribution on the credibility of regulations and promised reforms is always highlighted in the media.
• Trust Deficit from CTRN Act Failures:
  • It points out that this deficit is reflected in the perceived attempt to control digital infrastructure and citizens’ viewing choices through the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill.

Concerns about Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill:

The draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill as a systematic effort to control digital infrastructure and citizens’ viewing choices. But there is skepticism about the bill fostering oligopolistic media ownership tendencies amid debates on “cultural invasion” and “anti-national” programming.

• Selective Representation and Normalization: 
  • The proposed bill may contribute to erasing or selectively representing Indian minority communities.
  • The bill could normalize a universal Hindu identity for India, impacting the diverse cultural and religious fabric.
• Ambiguous language: 
  • In point 36 allows an “authorized officer” to prohibit content not conforming to prescribed codes, potentially promoting disharmony on various grounds.
  • The vague framing raises concerns about the potential misuse of regulatory powers against content diverging from a particular narrative.
• Potential Impact on Freedom of Expression:
  • The discretionary powers granted to authorized officers may lead to restrictions on content that goes against the government’s perspective.
  • The connection between authorized officers and government influence raises questions about impartiality and freedom of expression.
• Advocacy for Conflict of Interest Regulation: 
  • Emphasizes the immediate need for regulations addressing conflicts of interest in the Indian media sector.
  • Points out a notable omission or intentional disregard by the government in regulating conflicts of interest within the Indian media industries.
• Critical Assessment of Regulatory Measures:
  • Raises questions about the potential adverse effects on the welfare of Indian citizens amid the government’s eagerness to serve.
  • Positions conflict of interest regulation as paramount, asserting that other regulatory efforts may be conduits for control rather than facilitating business ease.

Source: 

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ease-of-control-9028225/ 

Mains question

Examine the challenges of regulating Over-the-Top (OTT) platforms in India. Assess the balance between freedom of expression and the need for content regulation in the digital era. Discuss. (250 words)