Controlling Over-the-Top (OTT): The Draft Broadcasting Regulation

Controlling Over-the-Top (OTT): The Draft Broadcasting Regulation Bill could be an effort to exert control over digital infrastructure. On November 10, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) unveiled the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, following the much-discussed and contentious introduction of the IT Rules 2021.

The Bill suggests replacing the broadcast industry’s regulatory framework, the Cable Television Networks (legislation) Act of 1995, with a single, unified legislation for “broadcasting, OTT, Digital Media, DTH, IPTV”.

The Prime Minister’s vision for “ease of doing business” and “ease of living” would be advanced by the Broadcasting Services Bill, 2023, according to I&B Minister Anurag Thakur’s comments on X.

However, considering the responses to the IT Rules 2021, which were also introduced under the guise of national welfare, one might question whether the vision here is actually the “ease of control and regulation.”

Of course, enacting laws that benefit the populace is a top priority in every democracy. But the BJP’s track record when it comes to media regulation points away from public service. This is due to the fact that its policies for media regulation have never lived up to expectations.

The proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill has the potential to normalize a universal Hindu identity of India and to intensify the erasure or selective depiction of Indian minority communities in the popular imagination.

The wording of point 36 in the draft, for instance, is very broad and ambiguous. It reads as follows: “Where any authorised officer, thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, he may, by order, prohibit any cable broadcasting network operator, radio broadcasting network operator, terrestrial broadcasting network operator, and IPTV broadcasting network operator from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme or channel from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme or channel if.

It is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code and advertisement code referred to in section 19 or if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, discord or sentiments of animosity, hatred, or ill-will between various religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups or castes or communities, or any other ground whatsoever, or which is likely to disturb the peace of the public.

It is obvious that hiring a “authorised officer” who works for the government and follows its directives is inextricably linked to its power.The government has purposefully or entirely neglected to regulate the conflicts of interest that permeate the Indian media industry in this circus of dishonest and poorly implemented legislation.

Particularly considering that the credibility of these regulations and the reforms they were supposed to bring have long been damaged by the relationship between MSOs, politicians, and the vertical integration of broadcasting and cable distribution services. But even a quick look at the CTRN Act’s shortcomings reveals a lack of citizen trust in the government.

So much so that the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill’s draft form appears to be a methodical attempt to regulate the digital infrastructure and every facet of the public’s viewing preferences.

Even as everyone debates “cultural invasion” and “anti-national” programming, the government is subtly encouraging media ownership tendencies that lead to oligopoly. It is anyone’s guess as to how this does not negatively impact the welfare of every Indian citizen that it is willing to assist.

We urgently need a conflict of interest regulation. All other attempts at promoting “ease of control and regulation” are really just attempts to promote “ease of business” through regulations.