abhishreshthaa
Abhijeet S
UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY
The interesting part of the proposed Bill is not only what it contains, but also what it does not. The Bill hardly addresses issues of public interest such as universal access, public address broadcasting, protecting against cross-media monopolies, etc; there is little or no attempt identify the needs of the people and their interests. Instead, the Bill’s focuses almost entirely on how to allow private players in various markets, protect them against "the dominant player" and see that they make profits. The only other area the Bill addresses is to set up a censoring agency that will carry out government directives. Such directives could include no criticism of defence services or of the police as it will weaken "the territorial integrity of the country", one of the objectives of the Bill. In a discussion in All India Radio on the Bill, the anchor strongly argued on the need to control the media on issues such as Tehalka and Kashmir, as they weaken the nation.
As long as corporate interests are protected and the government kept immune from criticism, the BJP led NDA government does not care what happens to rural telephony, taking telecommunications to all parts of the country and any other matter of public concern. A muzzled media making huge profits fits in with the ideology of the BJP; a police state for the capitalist class, this is the underlying philosophy of the Bill.
The misplaced focus of the Convergence Bill can be seen from its primary focus on competition. Presumably, the private operators in basic services, who have provided only three lakh telephones after three years of receiving their licenses, need to be protected against BSNL and MTNL that have provided in the same period, connections to two crore consumers. Obviously, the private operators are only interested in a minuscule section that can pay large amounts. In this context, the protection of private operators from BSNL or MTNL, which the Bill believes is its primary function, is ridiculous.
Any regulatory regime draws its need from public interest or larger social objectives. Unless there are such public interest issues, there is no need for regulation. The social objectives in telecom and broadcasting are providing universal access at low costs to the people. The broadcasters, apart from low cost viewing, have also to promote healthy, democratic culture, plurality of views and protect against harmful content. As telecommunications are largely private, the public interest lies in protecting the privacy of such communications. The regulatory needs of broadcasting and telecommunications are common in so far as there is a need to extend such services at low costs to the people.
The purposes of regulation in terms of content are completely different for broadcasting and telecommunications. In one case, it is public and therefore subject to regulation not to cause harm, for example to minors, prevents monopolies; in the case of telecommunications, regulation is to maintain privacy of the communication. Therefore, the question that arises is should there be a common regulatory approach at all?
The interesting part of the proposed Bill is not only what it contains, but also what it does not. The Bill hardly addresses issues of public interest such as universal access, public address broadcasting, protecting against cross-media monopolies, etc; there is little or no attempt identify the needs of the people and their interests. Instead, the Bill’s focuses almost entirely on how to allow private players in various markets, protect them against "the dominant player" and see that they make profits. The only other area the Bill addresses is to set up a censoring agency that will carry out government directives. Such directives could include no criticism of defence services or of the police as it will weaken "the territorial integrity of the country", one of the objectives of the Bill. In a discussion in All India Radio on the Bill, the anchor strongly argued on the need to control the media on issues such as Tehalka and Kashmir, as they weaken the nation.
As long as corporate interests are protected and the government kept immune from criticism, the BJP led NDA government does not care what happens to rural telephony, taking telecommunications to all parts of the country and any other matter of public concern. A muzzled media making huge profits fits in with the ideology of the BJP; a police state for the capitalist class, this is the underlying philosophy of the Bill.
The misplaced focus of the Convergence Bill can be seen from its primary focus on competition. Presumably, the private operators in basic services, who have provided only three lakh telephones after three years of receiving their licenses, need to be protected against BSNL and MTNL that have provided in the same period, connections to two crore consumers. Obviously, the private operators are only interested in a minuscule section that can pay large amounts. In this context, the protection of private operators from BSNL or MTNL, which the Bill believes is its primary function, is ridiculous.
Any regulatory regime draws its need from public interest or larger social objectives. Unless there are such public interest issues, there is no need for regulation. The social objectives in telecom and broadcasting are providing universal access at low costs to the people. The broadcasters, apart from low cost viewing, have also to promote healthy, democratic culture, plurality of views and protect against harmful content. As telecommunications are largely private, the public interest lies in protecting the privacy of such communications. The regulatory needs of broadcasting and telecommunications are common in so far as there is a need to extend such services at low costs to the people.
The purposes of regulation in terms of content are completely different for broadcasting and telecommunications. In one case, it is public and therefore subject to regulation not to cause harm, for example to minors, prevents monopolies; in the case of telecommunications, regulation is to maintain privacy of the communication. Therefore, the question that arises is should there be a common regulatory approach at all?