|
 In
the last few weeks, a new word has entered the Indian lexicon: CAS.
This abbreviated form of conditional access system has been the
subject of intense debate in the recent past, giving it a 'top-of-the-charts'
ranking. Amidst all the clamour of intense lobbying by interest
groups and political populism, the benefits and problems have got
completely distorted and real issues clouded.
In simple terms, CAS will mean a higher cost
for some cable households, and a lower cost for all the others.
The present system of cable tv distribution is akin to your wanting
to buy just bread and butter but the grocer insisting on giving
you five varieties of cheese, 10 different jams, and a whole range
of pickles. Since he does this to all customers, he offers a good
rate-but clearly, it benefits you only if you actually wanted all
the things he bills you for. For those wanting only bread and butter,
the 'lower rate' is, in fact, a rip off about which you are unable
to do anything. The answer, clearly, is 'unbundling' and paying
only for what you want.
This is precisely what CAS
seeks to do. Instead of paying for all the channels that the cable
operator decides to supply, you pay a much smaller amount for the
basic (bread-and-butter) channels, and then pay additionally only
for what you choose to buy. For these additional channels you will
be needing a special device-a set-top box that enables you to have
access to all the channels you want, conditional on your paying
an extra amount.
Thus, the cost of the basic package is expected
to be lower than what is being paid now by most consumers. Those
wanting extra channels will, of course, need to pay more. Depending
on how many channels they want, it is possible that they may pay
more than what they are paying today.
Experience elsewhere indicates that CAS promotes
quality and niche audience channels that people want but do not
always watch (akin to buying an encyclopedia or a dictionary). It
could also help, indirectly, to revive terrestrial television.
However, there are a few key issues. The first
concerns the composition of the basic package. Who will decide the
composition of the basic pay package? Having the government as the
decision-maker is not such a wise idea, and is more likely to give
rise to various pressures and allegations. The second issue is the
cost of the additional, 'pay' channels. Should the pricing decision
be left entirely to the market forces or should it be through fiat?
Government intervention is, again, not desirable.
Today, in most areas, a single cable operator
has a de facto local monopoly. This is a serious problem that needs
to be tackled, but is quite independent of CAS. On the other hand,
the introduction of CAS presents an opportunity to do away with
this stranglehold.
One way of doing that is by introducing direct
competition, possibly through a fiscal incentive (e.g., no service
tax for the first two years) to a second and third operator in a
given area. This would require some form of licensing. Another way
would be stimulating the early introduction of a direct-to-home
(DTH) service, possibly by the state- owned Prasar Bharati, thus
providing an alternative to cable. Accelerating the introduction
of digital terrestrial television (Doordarshan has already begun
some experiments), which could relay about 20 channels through terrestrial
transmission, could provide another option.
A truly independent regulator could help safeguard
customer interests on various matters: tariff, channels in basic
package, content and advertising, and competition. It could specify
standards for the set-top box to ensure inter-operability (enabling,
like hand phones, access to any service provider). The regulator
could also help to evolve a common box that could be used for access
to cable TV, DTT, DTH, internet and telephony. Such a convergent
box is very much in the realm of feasibility, but needs a push.
Overall, though with some ifs and buts, CAS
seems a good proposition. Let's hope that the Minister of State
for Information and Broadcasting Ravi Shankar Prasad, continues
to stand firm in his resolve to implement CAS, as he has done so
far.
Kiran Karnik is President,
NASSCOM. These are the personal views of author and not necessarily
of NASSCOM. The author can be reached at kkarnik@nasscom.org
|
