The telecom regulator TRAI’s Consultation Paper on “Inputs for Formulation of National Telecom Policy – 2018”, had suggestion of an “integrated regulation of ICT and broadcasting sector led by economic and social policy goals of the country”. The TV broadcasters have not liked the idea and red flagged it.
The News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Star India, and ZEEL, in their response to the consultation paper, have submitted that there is no need for a converged regulator for ICT and broadcasting as the two sectors have a different set of challenges.
The broadcasters added that even the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology has suggested creating a separate regulator for the broadcasting sector. The committee has also suggested that till the time the government decides to have a separate regulator for broadcasting sector “steps may be taken to empower TRAI through modifications in the TRAI Act for effective enforcement of its regulations by the authority”.
A particular suggestion was made by the NBA which said even if the TRAI is restructured as the common regulator for ICT and broadcasting, the TRAI should continue to regulate tariff, interconnection, and quality of service (QoS) for the broadcasting sector while the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) should continue to act as licensor, policy maker, and content regulator.
As per Star India’s feedback, creating a converged regulator for ICT and broadcast is a challenging feet and would require cooperation from MIB, department of telecom (DoT)/ministry of communications (MoC) and department of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) as it is the nodal authority for Copyright Act, the legislation protecting the rights of content producers/rights holders.
The broadcaster further suggested creating a separate regulator for the broadcasting sector. “With a converged regulator for ICT and broadcasting there is always the risk of “false equivalence” being drawn between the two sectors,” it noted.
Star said: “Therefore, telecommunication principles should never be applied when issues related to content are being determined. Moreover, in the preamble to the separate regulator for broadcasting the need to respect and uphold IP principles, laws and policies with respect to broadcast content should be mentioned and implemented in letter and spirit.”
ZEEL said in its suggestions that by trying to bring in the convergence issue the TRAI would be acting contrary to the decision of the Parliament because if telecom and broadcasting are converged there would be no need for a separate regulator as recommended by the committee.
ZEEL said: “Thus it would be premature for the TRAI to propose itself as a convergent regulator while it is aware that the scope of the Parliamentary Panel is yet to be examined by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and should they decide in their wisdom to set up a separate regulator, it would have been appropriate for the TRAI to recuse itself from major recommendations in the Broadcast Sector.”
Source: http://cablequest.org/index.php/news/national-news/item/12023-trai%E2%80%99s-suggestions-to-have-a-converged-regulator-fail-to-attract-broadcasters
The broadcasters added that even the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology has suggested creating a separate regulator for the broadcasting sector. The committee has also suggested that till the time the government decides to have a separate regulator for broadcasting sector “steps may be taken to empower TRAI through modifications in the TRAI Act for effective enforcement of its regulations by the authority”.
A particular suggestion was made by the NBA which said even if the TRAI is restructured as the common regulator for ICT and broadcasting, the TRAI should continue to regulate tariff, interconnection, and quality of service (QoS) for the broadcasting sector while the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) should continue to act as licensor, policy maker, and content regulator.
As per Star India’s feedback, creating a converged regulator for ICT and broadcast is a challenging feet and would require cooperation from MIB, department of telecom (DoT)/ministry of communications (MoC) and department of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) as it is the nodal authority for Copyright Act, the legislation protecting the rights of content producers/rights holders.
The broadcaster further suggested creating a separate regulator for the broadcasting sector. “With a converged regulator for ICT and broadcasting there is always the risk of “false equivalence” being drawn between the two sectors,” it noted.
Star said: “Therefore, telecommunication principles should never be applied when issues related to content are being determined. Moreover, in the preamble to the separate regulator for broadcasting the need to respect and uphold IP principles, laws and policies with respect to broadcast content should be mentioned and implemented in letter and spirit.”
ZEEL said in its suggestions that by trying to bring in the convergence issue the TRAI would be acting contrary to the decision of the Parliament because if telecom and broadcasting are converged there would be no need for a separate regulator as recommended by the committee.
ZEEL said: “Thus it would be premature for the TRAI to propose itself as a convergent regulator while it is aware that the scope of the Parliamentary Panel is yet to be examined by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and should they decide in their wisdom to set up a separate regulator, it would have been appropriate for the TRAI to recuse itself from major recommendations in the Broadcast Sector.”
Source: http://cablequest.org/index.php/news/national-news/item/12023-trai%E2%80%99s-suggestions-to-have-a-converged-regulator-fail-to-attract-broadcasters
No comments:
Post a Comment