On the 10th of November, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting released a draft bill: the Broadcasting Services Bill, which seeks to replace the 30 year old Cable Televisions Regulation Act and aims to include OTT and streaming into its purview. The I and B minister, Anurag Thakur, said that it would ‘streamline’ the regulatory framework for a broadcast landscape that has seen vast changes over the last couple of years. The aim of this bill is to ensure ‘the ease of doing business’ and promote technological advancement, and service evolution. You can check out the detailed bill link here: https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Public%20Notice_0.pdf
The main points of the bill:
1. The needs of people with disabilities, with guidelines recommending subtitles, inclusion of audio descriptions in video content, and translation into sign language. This is great, from a reach AND inclusion perspective. This will also create opportunities for a lot of innovation around translation, translation, and sign language technology.
2. The requirement of any person who broadcasts news and current affairs through online paper, news portal, or social media, must adhere to the Programme Code and Advertising Code. The inclusion of social media and online papers is a new addition. With the growing influence of social media, this seems to be a step that all governing bodies are taking: For example, the Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI) now requires the so-called financial influencers or “finfluencers” to be registered with SEBI, among other credentials, before they can offer investment-related advice, and similar crackdowns coming down on influencers who endorse health & fitness related products.
3. A proposed Broadcast Advisory Council to be set up, which will include 5 officers from different ministries, 1 “eminent independent person” with experience in media, entertainment & broadcast, and 5 domain experts. The aim of this council will be to provide guidance on violations of the programme & advertising codes. But more than that, in my opinion, the real value-add of the council will be to provide guidance on where the line should be drawn, in terms of regulation and censorship. China is an extreme example, where they have banned foreign news services, search engines, and social media, giving an opportunity to the local players. This way the government can keep better control of the information that circulates and easily monitor user data as they have full control of China-based services. While this seems to be a step in a positive direction, looking to further strengthen the self-regulation regime, it is impossible to read this without the subtext of control and censorship.
4. The bill also subjects operators and broadcasters to statutory fines which include advisory, censure, warning, or money. This section remains more or less the same - it has expanded to include OTT and streaming in its purview. What is worrying though is that the option for imprisonment and fines will still be available, but only for serious offenses - which is not defined. Any monetary penalties would be linked to the financial capacity of the entity, taking into account their investment and turnover.
5. There’s an entire section for submission of subscriber data from the platform to the Centre. This includes data under the subscriber management system, which includes name, email, and number – but worryingly also includes addresses, a log of all the subscribers’ activities including activation and deactivation dates, invoices raised, and consequent financial information.
A few of the principles that the data privacy bill is based on are:
The principle of consented, lawful, and transparent use of personal data
The principle of purpose limitation (use of personal data only for the purpose specified at the time of obtaining the consent of the Data Principal)
The principle of data minimisation (collection of only as much personal data as is necessary to serve the specified purpose)
This aims to protect the digital personal data of customers through defining how, when & why data will be used, but read in context with this bill seem to restrict this protection just to merchants. The requirement of submission of these personal details to the government stinks of censorship. UIDAI (Aadhar), Digilocker, & CKYC already solve for a central identity repository for Indian citizens. What is the need for the submission of this data? And what will it be used for? Merchants use this data to sell consumers products (you’ve probably got calls selling you personal loans and home insurance), but what need does the government have for this data?
6. Channels that have to be compulsorily transmitted, which will be specified by the government. It means that certain channels and programmes will have to be streamed on a platform.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. If there is a compulsion to transmit certain channels, who will bear the cost of streaming - will it have to be borne by OTT networks, and will it have to be streamed for free? Sports events such as IPL, Cricket World Cup, etc are bid for at audacious amounts (Jiocinema spent 20,500 Cr to acquire IPL rights for 5 years), because they bring in subscribers who can then be monetized (after Hotstar lost IPL, it's paid subscriber base dropped by 4.6M subscribers). It’s unlikely that this could happen since it would essentially cripple the ecosystem, but it’s a possibility nonetheless.
The concern here is that OTT emerged as an audacious alternative to TV – a way to say things that TV couldn’t. Even though this bill could have its heart in the right place, it still reeks of censorship. The fact that imprisonment has not been removed as a penalty is also worrying. The focus on subscriber data and the lack of clarity about what information has to be handed over to the government also seems slightly in the grey. Inclusion of details like subscriber activity and address - it is impossible to read this without the subtext of control. And where does this end?
This bill could potentially roll up to not just OTT platforms, but social media platforms, and to creators in general, since all social media platforms are content streamers. Which could be tricky. Creator-led content differs from OTT content in multiple ways - the vibe, the feel, and the language are tailored more to what you or I would use in our groups with our friends. Regulating this would prove to be quite challenging and quite possibly set back the creator economy - since a one-size-fits-all restriction, would result in similar content created across different platforms, and content censorship is a slippery slope. However, some entry barriers need to be created for influencers who do brand partnerships - some certification/license allowing them to promote brands which could have a heightened impact on consumer lives and finances.
The government has invited creators for feedback as they deliberate on its key features.
Any person or stakeholder desirous of sending views/comments/suggestions on the proposed legislation can do so by 9.12.23 through email at jsb-moib@gov.in
 | A guest post by
|