One of the latest developments on the
broadcast regulation front, and important from the viewer’s perspective, is the
revised regulation on the limitation of advertisements on television channels
to 12 minutes per clock hour.
In March 2012, the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) came up with a detailed consultation
paper on “ Issues related to advertisements in TV Channels.” Two months later,
it notified the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in
Television Channels) Regulations, 2012 (15 of 2012). However, broadcasters
challenged the TRAI regulation.
REVISED
REGULATION
TRAI then reconsidered the matter and, on
March 22, 2013, notified a revised regulation called Standards of Quality of
Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Amendment)
Regulations, 2013. This amended regulation retained a key
provision of the principal regulation, i.e., “no broadcaster shall,
in its broadcast of a programme, carry advertisements exceeding twelve minutes
in a clock hour. Explanation: The clock hour shall commence from 00.00 of the
hour and end at 00.60 of that hour (example: 14.00 to 15.00 hours).”
The broadcasting fraternity, led by the
News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation
(IBF), has vehemently opposed TRAI’s move. Last week, the broadcasters met the
Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, Manish Tewari, to
express their reservations. Mr. Tewari is reported to have said: “ We have encouraged the finding of a modus Vivendi whereby the imperatives of the consumer’s value
for money as well as the imperatives of their revenue model can be balanced.”
The broadcasters’ main grounds of
opposition are:
1) TRAI has no power to notify such
regulations;
2) TRAI’s regulation is against the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and (g) of the
Constitution;
3) Advertising revenue is the lifeblood
of the media and TRAI’s regulations were issued at a time when news channels
are facing a most unfriendly business environment, non-receipt of
advertisements from the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) and
the low level of digitisation in the country;
4) The regulations, if implemented, will
force many news organisations to shut down. With the General Election looming
ahead, it would appear that this is an attempt to muzzle the media by taking
away its ability to operate independently.
Let us analyse the
arguments:
Firstly, the Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology vide Gazette Notification No. 39,
dated January 9, 2004, notified the “Broadcasting Services and Cable Services
to be Telecommunication Services.” The duration of advertisements carried
during programmes on TV channels is closely related to the quality of viewing
experience of consumers. The quality of viewing experience is akin to the
“quality of service” provided by the service providers to consumers, which can
very well be regulated by TRAI. This clearly shows that TRAI has the necessary
powers to regulate the duration of advertisements on TV channels. Perhaps, this
is the reason why the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
(TDSAT) also allowed TRAI to have a second look into the matter and did not
strike down the latter’s original regulation.
Second, and most important, the cap on
advertisement duration to 12 minutes per hour is already a part of an existing
Advertisement Code, i.e., Rule 7(11) of the Cable Network Regulation Rules,
1994. It reads: “no programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 12 minutes
per hour, which may include up to 10 minutes per hour of commercial
advertisements, and up to 2 minutes per hour of a channel’s self-promotional
programmes.” TRAI’s revised regulation doesn’t disturb this existing statutory
position and only adds that “hour” means “clock hour” and proposes to enforce
the said rule.
It is indeed surprising to see the
response of the broadcasters that TRAI’s regulation will affect their
business/revenue models. The “10+2” rule has been in force for many years, so
it is strange that it has not already been factored into the revenue models of
broadcasters. If the rule was affecting their rights, why did they not
challenge it in court all this time? The TRAI regulation is being opposed
because it means the existing statutory stipulation will now be implemented
systematically. Before this, despite many complaints by viewers, the I&B
ministry played the role of a spectator, never taking any penal action against
erring broadcasters who blatantly violated the “10+2” rule. But how could media
houses presume forever, the Ministry’s “continued inaction” against their
violations?
Further, while the broadcasters are
talking about “control” of their freedom of expression, is indiscriminate
advertising to the extent of 35 per cent of prime time (even in pay channels)
not a violation of the basic rights of viewers, aside from being a statutory
violation under existing laws?
Third, the factors quoted by
broadcasters’ associations such as economic slowdown, unfriendly business
environment, non-receipt of advertisements from DAVP, low level of digitisation
in the country, etc., may be reasons affecting broadcasters’ revenues but they
can’t, by any stretch of imagination, be cited as justification for
indiscriminate and limitless advertising by TV channels in the name of freedom
of expression and freedom to carry on trade or business.
A study conducted by the Centre for Media
Studies (CMS) on the duration of advertisements in six major news channels over
the last four years found that on an average, around 35 per cent of the prime
time (7 p.m. to 11p.m.) of news broadcasters is just advertisements, against the
per hour limit of 20 per cent prescribed in the existing rules. The maximum
yearly average was found to be as high as 47.4 per cent.
GLOBAL
CODES
Lastly, almost all countries with a free
media have codes in place to regulate the duration and scheduling of television
advertisements. For example, the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive of
the European Union which sets the limit of advertising for all channels to be
12 minutes per hour, establishes the need to “protect the interests of
consumers as television viewers, particularly by ensuring they are not exposed
to excessive amounts of advertising which is also detrimental to the viewing
experience.” But these international best practices are conveniently ignored by
the broadcasters in their arguments. Media houses going to the extent of
painting this viewer-friendly regulation by TRAI as the government’s attempt
“to muzzle the media” in view of the upcoming election is a deliberate effort
to obfuscate the debate.
TRAI has in fact dropped many other key
provisions that were a part of the original regulation such as prohibition of
part-screen advertisements during programmes and the audio level of
advertisements not to be higher than the audio level of programmes. (These are
other violations of the code relating to advertisements on TV, presently going
on unchecked.)
If broadcasters feel they have a genuine
case — that the present statutory cap on advertisement duration is impacting
their interests adversely — they can pressure the government (not TRAI) to
amend the extant Rule 7(11) of Cable Network Regulation Rules, 1995 so as to
increase the present cap of 12 minutes further, say, to 15 minutes. Instead,
the broadcasting fraternity’s blanket opposition to the TRAI regulation, based
purely on business considerations, is unwarranted. It not only shows its
disregard for the relevant legal provisions presently in force but also its
disrespect for the due rights of millions of TV viewers in the country.
( Edara Gopi Chand is vice-president,
MediaWatch-India )
No comments:
Post a Comment