MEDIA MATTERS
Is Rs. 400 so outrageous?
SEVANTI NINAN
|
There is something in the Indian mindset which makes us reluctant to pay for media.
|
THE deflecting of the entire prickly issue of cable TV access at regulated prices to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) raises more questions than it answers. Is this an interim arrangement, as the Information and Broadcasting Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has been asserting? Is the TRAI going to be able to do very much to improve the situation when, unlike telecom, here it is dealing with a monopoly situation? What can it do to change that? Can it mandate that a locality should have a choice of operators and implement that? Given the low returns when rates are fixed at populist levels, are more people going to want to jump into the last mile business? What can it do to clean up an industry where criminal elements are often used to settle disputes?
REUTERS/HO/FOX
I wonder how many countries there are where the cost of the entertainment media, including sports channels, becomes an election issue. Cricket matches on satellite TV whenever India is playing are basic bread and butter, right? Now that's a new one. If that has to be adhered to, are we willing to let Doordarshan take the tax payer's money and buy rights to all these matches at stupendous prices? And then botch up the telecast, as it is wont to? No, we probably prefer the packaging we've got used to on the competition. The irony is that when there was only Doordarshan, free access to crucial cricket matches as a matter of right, was possible. But if we are glad that we have entertainment choices today, superior to what Doordarshan would offer, we have to accept the same element of competition when it comes to sports. With competition and a choice of four sports channels, you get pricey cable TV access from a monopoly provider and the arm twisting that comes with it.
Part of the problem of course is that we want first world television choices at third world prices. There is always apoplectic outrage in the tone of consumers who say, can you imagine our cable operator has begun to charge more than Rs. 400 a month? (or Rs. 500 as the case may be). If you were in Bangkok where a large cable operation run by a Thai Sikh enterprise has a monopoly, you would be paying the equivalent of Rs. 1,680 for the gold package of channels and Rs. 1,139 for the silver one. This is in addition to an installation fee of Rs. 11,400 and a security deposit of Rs. 4,800. In Singapore, a friend pays something like Rs. 1,192 for a basic service plus one extra channel. If you were to try further afield, you would find that what the Japanese pay ranges from the yen equivalent of Rs. 1,487 to Rs. 2,124 for Internet and cable TV packages. In Australia, what Foxtel charges per month translates to Rs. 1,512 for their main package. The competition Optus Vision has rates varying from Rs. 350 for its cheapest package (very few channels) to Rs. 1,758 for its most expensive one. All these are monthly rates. And in the United States, you would be likely to pay the equivalent of Rs. 1,600 per month.
We might be more comfortable comparing ourselves with Pakistan where there is a regulator attempting to fix channel prices as well as bouquet prices. In Islamabad, you pay Rs. 300 Pakistani rupees for well over 70 channels, many of which nobody wants, because they stretch to Chinese, Russian, Islamic and Arabic channels. In smaller towns, cable packages could cost from Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 (Pakistani). In any case, in this country the regulatory authority's writ does not run much beyond Islamabad.
Because cable TV in India initially came as a bonanza for the cable operator who for years paid the broadcasters nothing, and for the consumers who, therefore, paid very little, we are reluctant to pay proper rates for a smorgasbord of information and entertainment. Why is Rs. 400 a month so outrageous when in Delhi a single trip for a family of four to a multiplex to see a movie would cost more? Why does the government want to fix the basic free-to-air bouquet at less than Rs. 100 when a gas cylinder costs Rs. 250 and monthly utility bills for telephone or electricity or water cost much more than Rs. 100? How much do we willingly cough up by way of mobile phone rentals?
There is something in the Indian mindset which makes us reluctant to pay for media. Look at what newspapers cost elsewhere: more than Rs. 20 a copy for an upmarket newspaper in Bangkok, and Rs. 10 or more for the same in Pakistan. Here in India, any price cutting by a competitor leads to instant circulation gains. Any attempt by a newspaper that is constantly making losses to increase its cover price, leads to a drop in circulation.
Because this is an election year, the Government is anxious to untangle the conditional access muddle. But look at the adhocism it has resorted to. The communication convergence bill had many elements to it. Now one chunk of it has gone to the telecom regulator. What of the rest? And will TRAI be inclined to seek solutions to the many quality issues that abound in cable delivery of TV channels? If cable operators are forced to declare households honestly, will broadcasters be asked to pay a cess to defray the burden of maintaining the last mile access which makes it possible for their channels to be viewed in India?
And if not, are cable package rates likely to be brought on par with international standards to make a transparent, two-way optic fibre cable system in every city a reality?
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
