There is no requirement for a separate comprehensive code to address the convergence between broadcasting and telecommunication services, 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) said in their submission.
Trai had launched a consultation paper in January to obtain feedback from stakeholders in telecom and broadcasting sectors on regulating converged digital technologies and services.
IBDF, leading industry body of TV broadcasting in India, has contended that telecom and broadcasting are distinct services and should have separate laws.
Bundling different services like TV, broadband, and voice into one offering does not signify convergence between the services, IBDF stated in its submission. There is no device, service, or carriage convergence between telecom and broadcasting services, it pointed out.
IBDF opined that separate but coordinated frameworks are most appropriate for the Indian context.
According to AROI, Trai should prioritise addressing the issue of vertical integration and prevent telcos from controlling broadcast content and carriage entities. The FM radio body recommended extending the vertical integration rule, which limits DTH operators to a maximum 20% stake in broadcast companies, to telcos as well.AIDCF, which represents major cable TV distribution firms, said it is too early to establish a comprehensive policy for the two services. It suggested that the regulator first create a common regulatory and licensing framework for all similar service providers before conducting a thorough assessment of a service-specific regulatory and administrative system.
It also noted that the issues related to the convergence of broadcast carriage platforms and telecom services are specific to telcos that are providing mobile communication, fibre, and DTH via a single optical fibre, which is not viable for cable TV companies.
AIDCF also highlighted that there is a technological barrier to converging the two services, as cable TV technology is a one-way service while telecom services use two-way interactive technology.
DNPA, a group of news publishers in India, stated Trai’s consultation paper is based on a flawed understanding of convergence.
A converged regulatory and legal framework could lead to smaller broadcasters and distribution platforms going out of business due to the promotion of gatekeeping practices, it said. DNPA emphasised the need for fair competition and transparent regulation to ensure that all players in the media and telecom industries have equal opportunities.
While pointing out that tech giants Google and Facebook have become a duopoly in the digital advertising market, the association stated that a converged regime will only enable the creation of monopolies by a few cash-rich telecom companies.
IAMAI submitted that there were existing laws governing broadcasting, the internet, and telecom services. It said convergence of some statutes and institutional frameworks relating to the carriage of broadcasting and telecom services already existed.
Further, it noted that Trai is the common regulator for telecom and broadcasting carriage, while the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) is the dispute settlement body for both sectors. Allotment of spectrum to both sets of operators is also approved by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), it said.
