Last week, the cabinet approved financial restructuring for Prasar Bharati to write off Rs.1,300 crore of debt. It agreed to meet 100% of its salary and salary-related costs for the next five years, but not its operational costs.
But, is the group of ministers (GoM) that recommended this decision the right forum to arrive at the surgical solutions needed for a sick institution like this one? Again, in 2010, it was a GoM that recommended amending the Prasar Bharati Act so that around 30,000 people could retain the benefits of being government employees—something they had been clamouring for. The amendment was passed in 2011.
The core of the problem with Prasar Bharati is that employees are prioritized over the institution, and the institution is prioritized over the objective for which it was created. The fundamental problem is that the government of India wants public service broadcasting for its huge population but does not have the conviction to foot the bill or create mechanisms to fund it.
Has the government taken a hard look at the prospects for terrestrial digital?
If it did, its own engineers and audience research people would tell the government that the numbers of those without cable connections in the villages of India are dwindling every day. There is rural growth not just in cable, but in direct-to-home (DTH) television. In Chhattisgarh, for instance, there is noticeable growth in rural DTH, and antenna households are diminishing in number. Doordarshan is better off investing much more seriously in its DTH broadcaster DD Direct than in a digital terrrestrial network which is currently going forward at a massive cost. The entire network of low power transmitters and high power transmitters has to be digitized by 2017. When India is already 75% on cable and satellite in 2012, does anybody in the Planning Commission ask questions that should be asked?
DD Direct, meanwhile, is treated like a cash cow, charging an impressive carriage fee for private channels. So smaller private regional channels simply cannot get on it. That makes DD’s bouquet less attractive than that of a private sector DTH competitor.
Read More . . . .
But, is the group of ministers (GoM) that recommended this decision the right forum to arrive at the surgical solutions needed for a sick institution like this one? Again, in 2010, it was a GoM that recommended amending the Prasar Bharati Act so that around 30,000 people could retain the benefits of being government employees—something they had been clamouring for. The amendment was passed in 2011.
The core of the problem with Prasar Bharati is that employees are prioritized over the institution, and the institution is prioritized over the objective for which it was created. The fundamental problem is that the government of India wants public service broadcasting for its huge population but does not have the conviction to foot the bill or create mechanisms to fund it.
Has the government taken a hard look at the prospects for terrestrial digital?
If it did, its own engineers and audience research people would tell the government that the numbers of those without cable connections in the villages of India are dwindling every day. There is rural growth not just in cable, but in direct-to-home (DTH) television. In Chhattisgarh, for instance, there is noticeable growth in rural DTH, and antenna households are diminishing in number. Doordarshan is better off investing much more seriously in its DTH broadcaster DD Direct than in a digital terrrestrial network which is currently going forward at a massive cost. The entire network of low power transmitters and high power transmitters has to be digitized by 2017. When India is already 75% on cable and satellite in 2012, does anybody in the Planning Commission ask questions that should be asked?
DD Direct, meanwhile, is treated like a cash cow, charging an impressive carriage fee for private channels. So smaller private regional channels simply cannot get on it. That makes DD’s bouquet less attractive than that of a private sector DTH competitor.
Read More . . . .
