And this well-meaning law finally took shape as something called CAS — which in its present form is unfortunately nothing but an outdated technology called a Set-Top-Box (STB). While the CAS concept is welcome, the manner in which it has taken shape and the absence of a coherent policy framework for its implementation makes it consumer-unfriendly.

The STB that is planned for the homes is supposed to sit on television sets and receive pay channels the viewer chooses to pay for and watch. The STB can either be digital or analog and cost between Rs 2,500 and Rs 8,000. (Experts confirm that the analog STBs work just as well as the digital ones; and that the difference in clarity and reception depends on the cable television network, not the receiver alone.) Neither the digital nor the analog STB will work outside the environment it is set up in and so a viewer cannot take it with him when shifting to another metro.

So does this STB address the consumer concerns? A look at the consumer issues in the context of the present CAS.

Poor reception: It is argued that with increased technology, reception of channels may not be an issue.

Arbitrary pricing: With the CAS system not yet in place, it is too early to decide whether this will stop. However, the Government's reluctance to bring in a regulatory framework, before enforcing the new system, is worrying. Further, there is no assurance from anyone that there will not be any post-CAS surprises — with FTA channels becoming pay channels and further arbitrary increases (especially a round the time of any major event).

Bundling of channels: It is argued that with the CAS, this issue may have been tackled. Consumers can potentially buy the channels they want. However, the pricing of individual channels remains an issue.

Poor service delivery by CTOs: Not addressed.

Monopolies in each area: Not addressed.

Lack of regulatory framework: Not addressed.

Lack of redress avenues: Continues (with CTOs even willing to disobey orders of the Consumer Forum).

In reality, the CAS, as it is designed now, is possibly attempting to resolve the problem of under declaration of connections by CTOs — which is not a consumer issue as much as an issue for broadcasters. At a recent meeting in New Delhi, it was even suggested that the present CAS is a system to ensure that four of the five players in the cable television sector — the broadcaster, the MSO, the CTO and the government — benefit from the exploitation of the fifth member — the consumer. The determined manner in which each of these players, especially the Government, is thrusting this system down the throats of consumers is, therefore, quite consistent with this suggestion.

Technologically, the STBs are outdated with little or no market outside this country. Experts confirm that cables may not even be necessary today, unless they can provide broadband access for television signals, basic telephony, Internet, video-on-demand, pay-per-view, etc. The suggestion that these archaic STBs are being dumped on the country is, therefore, not unfounded.

The irony of this present action by the Centre is its reluctance to pass and implement the Convergence Bill lying in Parliament for some time now. If a consumer is ready to invest in an STB, why cannot it be for more than just cable television? With the passing of the Convergence Bill, it will be possible to receive telephone, Internet, and other value-added services apart from television channels through a more sophisticated STB. Why should the consumer be denied this? Lest this be misunderstood, a CAS concept is welcome, but needs to be brought in when the country is ready for it. And this will happen when it has in place a regulatory framework, a functional competition authority and up-to-date technologies such as convergence communications.

What is the point in making consumers buy these STBs today, when in the next six months they may become obsolete with the passing of the convergence law. Further, broadcasters, including the Doordarshan, are ready to offer Direct-To-Home (DTH) services. Other technologies such as digital VHF, direct transmission towers and Microwave Multipoint Distribution System (MMDS) may also provide alternatives to the CTO. Why not wait for these technologies in the next six months and then let consumers choose? Meanwhile, what the Government could, and should, do is focus on the lack of competition in this sector. Issues of monopolies and unfair trade practices are plenty and it can earn much goodwill by tackling them fairly.

The newly set-up Competition Authority must be encouraged to deal firmly with these issues. In its present form, the CAS is a poorly thought-out response to a genuine consumer issue. It is bereft of policy coherence, as it fails to focus on the three more important areas of work — convergence, competition and regulation. This flawed decision must not be imposed on consumers.

(The author is legal coordinator, Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group, Chennai.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication