CAS: Confusion, Anarchy, Strife

The real reason why powerful sections are opposed to the smooth implementation of CAS is simple. It would drastically curtail corruption. Broadcasters are currently dependent on imperfect techniques of market research — including the seeding of “people meters” — to gauge levels of viewership expressed in the form of TRPs (television rating points). Once the introduction of CAS results in an “addressable” system, broadcasters would obtain far more accurate statistics of their viewers. In other words, exaggeration of viewer numbers would be curbed. There is another respect in which thievery and deception would come down. Currently, cable operators declare 15-20 per cent of their actual subscribers for two reasons. One, they have to fork out much lower sums to broadcasters/ MSOs. Secondly, by under-declaring their subscriber base, LMOs are able to offer their services for amounts ranging between Rs 100 and Rs 300 per month.

The pitched battles that have been witnessed in recent months over the introduction of CAS have much to do with sharing of the spoils and relatively little to do with offering viewers “greater choice”. Though everybody swears by consumers, few give a damn for them. The subscriber in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata still does not know how much he would have to pay for his STB, whether it would come to him free on a monthly lease rental of, say, Rs 30, whether he would have the option of purchasing it outright, whether it would be analog or digital or whether it would be imported or locally assembled. Even if these issues are sorted out by undertaking imports of the gadgets — from, among others, companies associated with the Murdoch empire — certain other problems will not disappear in a hurry.

The broadcasters are right now split into two camps, swadeshi and videshi, with the former claiming that the latter is trying its level best to scuttle CAS while claiming support for it in public. This divide has perhaps less to do with CAS and more to do with the controversial manner in which the STAR group has attempted to hive off a company with a small paid-up equity capital base (held by friends and associates) to adhere to government norms for uplinking its news channel.

The biggest question that remains unanswered is why the government is so keen to implement CAS at a time when elections are virtually round the corner. At a time like this, one would have thought that the powers-that-be would be more interested in demonstrating to the electorate that they want to govern well, create jobs, provide power, build roads, help farmers and so on. How important are barely 7 million urban middle class cable television subscribers? Answer: The Delhi voter may matter right now, but not most of the others. To what extent does the television viewing habits of this section influence the rest of the country? Not very much. Do you seriously believe the government amended the law to help cable television subscribers who were at the mercy of monopolistic cable operators who would arbitrarily hike their charges? Probably not.

The answers could perhaps be found in two unrelated developments. The I&B ministry was keen to bring in an ordinance to rein in recalcitrant broadcasters but opinion within the Cabinet was clearly against it on the ground that such a move could be construed as trying to curb the media’s freedom of expression. The other reason could lie in the fine print of the amended law that provides the government over-riding powers to control which channel is watched where and when, for free or for a fee — all in “public interest”, of course. There were many in the government who were unhappy with the television coverage of the Gujarat riots. They wanted a law that could check broadcasters. In trying to move ahead, this group probably bit off more than what they could chew.

(The writer is director, School of Convergence, International Management Institute, New Delhi)