The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper early this month for the formulation of the National Broadcast Policy. The aim of the policy, according to TRAI, is to position India as a ‘global content hub.’ However, stakeholders in the television sector have voiced concerns, saying that the policy overlooks crucial broadcast-specific issues and instead focuses on the broader media and entertainment industry.
One of the major concerns raised by the stakeholders is that the policy does not adequately address important broadcast-related issues such as overregulation, licensing restrictions and the face-off between broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs). They argue that the paper extends its scope beyond broadcasting by addressing issues related to films, OTT platforms and audio-visual content generation (AVCG).
Crucial issues overlooked?
“Overregulation, inflation, interconnection, licensing restrictions, and legal disputes between broadcasters and DPOs have not been resolved. Instead of addressing these pressing challenges, the paper looks to offer vague suggestions with no clear solutions,” said a senior executive with a leading broadcaster on the condition of anonymity.
“Also, this consultation paper seems to extend its scope beyond broadcasting by addressing issues related to films, OTT platforms and AVCG, encompassing the entire media & entertainment industry,” he added.
While TRAI on paper emphasises the need for affordable television services, indigenous manufacturing of broadcasting equipment and job creation in the sector, players in the industry feel critical issues like monetization and regulatory ambiguity have been neglected.
According to Karan Taurani, SVP, Elara Capital the problem is that this policy is not highlighting the price hike issue. “Broadcasters will not be able to hike prices of channels because of New Tariff Order (NTO). They will have to take permission, and so, for linear TV, the entire regulatory overhang persists. With the advertising growth rates coming down, broadcasters will eventually want to rely more on revenue from channel prices. The ad money is moving away to digital at a very fast pace, specifically for genres like sports and GEC. We have seen a big shift. TV obviously has the larger share, but Digital too, is coming on par in terms of advertising share. There is a big concern here to address this issue of ARPUs (Average Revenue Per User), which is not mentioned in the paper.”
Besides the issue of price hike, Taurani believes, concerns around level playing field are also important. “TV is completely censored while Digital is not. There’s actually no level playing field, and the youth and the incremental audience, which is coming to consume entertainment, are going to OTT and not TV. The TV audience is also migrating in a slow-paced manner towards OTT. The broadcast industry is under a lot of stress, and growing linear TV share in the overall M&E industry is out of question. These concerns about subscription or pricing and level playing field should be addressed for linear TV to sustain.”
In February this year, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology (SCCIT) urged the Central government to bring in a comprehensive act for regulating the industry and creating a level playing field for all broadcasting services.
In its 56th report on ‘Regulation of Cable Television in India’, submitted in both the Houses of the Parliament, the standing committee told the MIB that the cable TV industry needs to be regulated through a comprehensive act. “As submitted by MIB, there is an urgent need to create a level playing field for all broadcasting services as well as to address the need for satellite-based technologies, which are being regulated through the old legislation. The committee believes the cable TV industry needs to be regulated through a comprehensive act and therefore it recommends the ministry to ensure that the proposed ‘Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023’ sees the light of the day,” the parliamentary panel said. The committee has also asked the ministry to ensure adequate consultations are done with all concerned stakeholders.
TRAI has sought stakeholders’ inputs on the consultation paper by April 30, 2024.
Concerns raised in pre-consultation paper overlooked?
According to another industry expert, when TRAI floated the pre-consultation paper last year, broadcasters had expressed their concerns clearly. But the consultation paper issued now appears to have ignored those concerns. According to him, the paper in fact repeats them without providing fresh perspectives.
A top executive from a TV channel stated that the consultation paper is similar to the pre-consultation. “The IBDF had provided a thorough response to TRAI’s pre-consultation paper on the National Broadcast Policy, and the industry’s stance is expected to remain unchanged,” he said.
Last year, the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) submitted its perspective on the pre-consultation paper on the proposed National Broadcast Policy. The IBDF had said that the broadcasting bill would be more viable and responsive to the needs of the sector if it encompasses key objectives while addressing some existential concerns faced by the television broadcasting sector. The IBDF had expressed that the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023, should prioritize key objectives and address critical concerns facing the television broadcasting sector. They highlighted issues such as rigid price regulations and regulatory ambiguity.
According to the IBDF’s submission to the pre-consultation paper last year, OTT platforms should not be covered under the bill, as they are distinct from traditional broadcasting platforms. The prescription of programme and advertisement codes by the Central government is viewed as an unreasonable regulation of free speech, necessitating their inclusion in the draft bill for consultation, it said.
The IBDF had suggested that the implementation of accessibility standards should be voluntary, and maintaining a single industry-led rating body is preferred to prevent conflicts in data. It further argued that excessive penalties may have a chilling effect on free speech.
Multiple rating agency proposal
In the consultation paper, TRAI has proposed the introduction of multiple rating agencies, sparking a debate in the industry. While some experts believe that competition among rating agencies would enhance service quality and innovation, others express concerns about potential challenges and increased costs associated with multiple agencies.
According to Sanjay Trehan, Digital & New Media Consultant, “As the ambit of the policy increases to cover broadcast equipment, up linking, upskilling of resources and production of local content, it may be a good idea to have more than one rating agency as that would provide richer, more immersive data and validation to enable actionable insights.”
He further added that the parameters have to be objectively defined and data needs to be independently captured with a view to create a conducive environment for growth.
TRAI’s suggestion stems from concerns about the sole reliance on the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) for rating services. It highlights the need for healthy competition to drive innovation and ensure accuracy. However, industry insiders caution that the existing establishment of BARC, involving collaboration among broadcasters, advertisers, and advertising agencies, may pose obstacles to the adoption of another rating agency.
Vivek Menon, Managing Partner at NV CAPITAL, a Media & Entertainment Fund, too emphasised the potential benefits of having multiple rating agencies to foster competition in the broadcast industry. However, he also cautioned that the existing establishment of BARC which involves collaboration among broadcasters, advertising agencies, and advertisers, might present challenges to the adoption of another rating agency.
“Given the onslaught of digital and the growth of the broadcasting industry plateauing, I am skeptical about the possibility of the broadcasting industry subscribing to another rating agency,” said Menon.
Meanwhile, another industry insider acknowledged that while the current measurement surveys, spearheaded by BARC, are generally robust, concerns persist regarding objectivity and transparency, particularly due to the involvement of media owners. Also, the fact that BARC operates under the governance of various committees adds to the possibility of oversights, he said.
However, the insider highlighted a key issue with TV audience measurement. According to him, while the overall data may appear stable and reliable, obtaining accurate insights from smaller demographic segments, such as specific age groups or regional viewership patterns, poses challenges. For instance, when examining viewership of English news channels among males aged 15 to 35 in Uttar Pradesh, the sample sizes inherently shrink, leading to less precise data. This disparity underscores the complexity of accurately measuring audience engagement across diverse segments in the television landscape.
Taurani, however, expressed concerns that introducing more rating agencies would further complicate matters. He asserted, “BARC has been the most efficient and the best measurement system that linear TV has had so far, as compared to the earlier measurement systems.”
The IBDF, in its perspective at the time of pre-consultation, recommended that BARC formally represents all stakeholders and is best equipped to set audience research guidelines. BARC is uniquely placed to commission and extract high quality research which does not require government intervention, the federation had said.
According to the IBDF, BARC being an industry-led body and represented by three competing stakeholders, i.e. IBDF, ISA & AAAI, and having no cross-holdings and conflict of interest, is able to provide unbiased and accurate ratings by following a transparent process.
The IBDF had said that the Draft Bill allows the existence of multiple rating agencies. It is recommended that the existence of multiple rating agencies may result in possible conflicts as data of different agencies will be based on the sample of different sample households. The output from different agencies can differ, which may lead to the possibility of conflict of data. Also, different agencies may choose different parameters and metrics to provide ratings which will result in different outputs in varied units of measurements, thus creating conflicts. If more Television rating agencies are allowed to compete then the sample size will reduce and might even get scattered demographically and multiple agencies will lead to an increased cost of operations which will be passed on to the end users/consumers.
“It is recommended that the present system of having a single industry-led body with representation from three competing stakeholders should continue,” IBDF had said.
What are the key issues raised in TRAI’s National Broadcast Policy?
Based on the pre-consultation paper, feedback received, and meetings with stakeholders, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has identified and categorised key issues relevant from a policy perspective. Some of the key issues include:
Measuring and increasing the sector’s contribution to the Indian Economy - TRAI aims to bolster the broadcasting sector’s impact on the Indian economy by ensuring affordable TV services in underserved areas, boosting R&D, promoting indigenous manufacturing of equipment, fostering employment via skill development, and supporting innovation-led start-ups.
Promoting India as a ‘Global Content Hub’ – TRAI emphasises promoting Indian content to establish India as a ‘Global Content Hub’ and ‘Uplinking Hub,’ urging broadcasters to showcase regional and local content worldwide. Key technologies like animation, VFX, and XR are crucial for creating educational and cultural content. TRAI also highlights the importance of satellite infrastructure for channel uplinking and downlinking, proposing the exploration of Indian satellite capacities for both domestic and international channels.
Strengthening of Public Service Broadcasting for quality content production and dissemination – TRAI has urged stakeholders to propose guiding principles, measures, and strategies in the National Broadcast Policy (NBP) to strengthen India’s public service broadcaster. The focus is on enhancing quality content creation and dissemination through Doordarshan (DD) and All India Radio (AIR) channels, while also maximizing their global outreach.
Propelling growth of the various segments in the sector – The subsequent sections of the consultation paper discuss the growth of digital media (OTT platforms), films, online gaming, animation, visual effects (VFX) & post-production, music, and radio.
Fostering growth-oriented Policy and Regulatory environment – TRAI stresses the need for updated policy and regulatory measures to adapt to technological advancements and sector convergence. Additionally, TRAI proposes encouraging infrastructure sharing between broadcasting and telecommunication players to optimize resources.
Combatting Piracy and Ensuring Content Security through Copyright Protection – TRAI said it is extremely important to develop and implement a multifaceted strategy in the sector to combat the issues raised by piracy and ensure the reduction of copyright infringement to foster a sustainable and thriving creative ecosystem for the various segments of the broadcasting landscape.
Leveraging Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting – This part focuses on what policy and regulatory provisions would be required in the policy to enable and facilitate growth of digital terrestrial broadcasting in India. TRAI requested stakeholders to provide strategies for spectrum utilization, standards for terrestrial broadcasting, support required from the Government, timelines for implementation, changes to be brought in the current ecosystem and the international best practices.
Reviewing the structure of Audience Measurement and Rating System – Under this section, TRAI proposed to have multiple rating agencies. According to the regulator, more competition among rating agencies may result in improved service quality and potentially lower prices for stakeholders.
Establishing effective Grievance Redressal Mechanism – A three-tier redressal mechanism has been proposed by the regulator, including self-regulation by broadcasters and broadcasting network operators, self-regulatory organisations of broadcasters and broadcasting network operators, and the Broadcast Advisory Council.
Ensuring Socio-environmental Responsibilities and Recognising the role of Broadcasting during Disasters – This section focuses on the role of the broadcasting sector to fulfill social and environmental responsibilities.
IBDF comments on the Pre-Consultation paper
On September 21, 2023, TRAI had floated a pre-consultation paper, to elicit the issues that are required to be considered for the formulation of ‘National Broadcasting Policy’ for which the regulator received 28 comments from various associations, companies, service providers, individuals and consumer advocacy groups.
Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) too shared their perspective on the pre-consultation paper which outlines concerns and suggestions regarding the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, and its impact on the broadcasting industry.
According to the IBDF, despite TRAI’s Pre-Consultation Paper on the National Broadcast Policy, the draft bill was circulated for consultation without completing the process or addressing fundamental stakeholder concerns. The industry body had recommended a robust principle-based broadcast bill that recognises the integral role of broadcasting in India’s economic landscape, and it included:
1. A stable and enduring self-regulatory framework with forbearance on economic regulation.
2. The need to nurture creativity in content production and foster innovation in distribution and carriage technologies.
3. The imperative to protect freedom of speech and expression.
4. The importance of market-driven licensing and negotiation for creative property.
5. The need for flexibility and adaptability to changing consumption patterns and technological innovations in sectoral and regulator capabilities.
6. The need to recognise, protect, and uphold the primacy of intellectual property rights protection in content driven industries.
7. The need for sector-specific copyright enforcement measures.
(With inputs from Ashee Sharma)
