There is not any requirement for a separate complete code to handle the convergence between broadcasting and telecommunication providers, Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), Association of Radio Operators for India (AROI), and All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) stated of their submission.
Trai had launched a session paper in January to acquire suggestions from stakeholders in telecom and broadcasting sectors on regulating converged digital applied sciences and providers.
IBDF, main trade physique of TV broadcasting in India, has contended that telecom and broadcasting are distinct providers and will have separate legal guidelines.
Bundling totally different providers like TV, broadband, and voice into one providing doesn’t signify convergence between the providers, IBDF acknowledged in its submission. There is not any gadget, service, or carriage convergence between telecom and broadcasting providers, it identified.
IBDF opined that separate however coordinated frameworks are most applicable for the Indian context.
According to AROI, Trai ought to prioritise addressing the difficulty of vertical integration and forestall telcos from controlling broadcast content material and carriage entities. The FM radio physique really useful extending the vertical integration rule, which limits DTH operators to a most 20% stake in broadcast firms, to telcos as properly.AIDCF, which represents main cable TV distribution companies, stated it’s too early to determine a complete coverage for the 2 providers. It prompt that the regulator first create a standard regulatory and licensing framework for all comparable service suppliers earlier than conducting an intensive evaluation of a service-specific regulatory and administrative system.
It additionally famous that the problems associated to the convergence of broadcast carriage platforms and telecom providers are particular to telcos which are offering cell communication, fibre, and DTH by way of a single optical fibre, which isn’t viable for cable TV firms.
AIDCF additionally highlighted that there’s a technological barrier to converging the 2 providers, as cable TV know-how is a one-way service whereas telecom providers use two-way interactive know-how.
DNPA, a gaggle of stories publishers in India, acknowledged Trai’s session paper relies on a flawed understanding of convergence.
A converged regulatory and legal framework may result in smaller broadcasters and distribution platforms going out of enterprise as a result of promotion of gatekeeping practices, it stated. DNPA emphasised the necessity for honest competitors and clear regulation to make sure that all gamers within the media and telecom industries have equal alternatives.
While mentioning that tech giants Google and Facebook have turn out to be a duopoly within the digital promoting market, the affiliation acknowledged {that a} converged regime will solely allow the creation of monopolies by a couple of cash-rich telecom firms.
IAMAI submitted that there have been current legal guidelines governing broadcasting, the web, and telecom providers. It stated convergence of some statutes and institutional frameworks regarding the carriage of broadcasting and telecom providers already existed.
Further, it famous that Trai is the widespread regulator for telecom and broadcasting carriage, whereas the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) is the dispute settlement physique for each sectors. Allotment of spectrum to each units of operators can be permitted by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), it stated.
