From fred at bytesforall.org Sat Oct 2 16:11:08 2004 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:41:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [cr-india] Radio is emerging as the medium with highest reach... BusinessIndia Message-ID: See Business India, Sept 13-26, 2004 and its article titled 'Lend me thy ear'. It says: "Radio is emerging as the medium with the highest reach". Quote: "According to the survey, Radio Mirchi gets more listeners than the combined readership of both the Times of India and Hindustan Times (58 lakh listeners vs. 34 lakh ToI readers and 13.4 lakh of HT) and is significantly more than the total viewership of Star Plus, the channel with the highest viewership (54 lakh)...." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Noronha (FN) Nr Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India Freelance Journalist P: 832-2409490 M: 9822122436 http://fn.swiki.net http://www.livejournal.com/users/goalinks http://fn-floss.notlong.com http://www.ryze.com/go/fredericknoronha ====================================================================== From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 11:11:55 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 09:11:55 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] subbu vincent on private FM Message-ID: <20041006091155.4728.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/242b6812/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- The following piece by Subbu Vincent appeared in Deccan Herald (Oct 5, 2004 - In Perspective). The idea of banning News on private FM radio, while permitting it on private TV channels, seems quite bizarre. I wonder which powerful intellect thought that one up. Sajan. POLICY IMBALANCE SHOULD BE REVERSED Govt does not allow news on private radio stations, allowing a monopoly for AIR to continue BY SUBRAMANIAM VINCENT The vibrant voices airing music shows on 20 odd private FM radio stations in our major cities do not reflect viability worries and restrictions that otherwise haunt this industry. In 2003-04, a whopping 93% of private broadcasters' total revenues went towards government license fees alone. Little wonder that two years in a row, stations have incurred hefty losses. Alongside this crisis, a critical policy imbalance awaits reversal. Private radio stations are banned from airing news programmes, but television, print and internet operations are not. But with the Cable TV regulatory issues hogging much of the limelight recently, serious questions regarding the future of radio policy are getting sidelined. Over six weeks ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) sent its final recommendations on a new phase of licensing for FM radio to the Broadcasting Ministry. Two prescriptions stood out for their progressive elements, but the Ministry's responses since then are indicating that government thinking on radio continues to be myopic. VIABILITY CRISIS TRAI asked the government to drop the bidding-driven process for setting radio license fees because it was this system that set the stage for the viability crisis. The regulator prefers a system more prevalent elsewhere in India and worldwide -revenue sharing. Under this system, stations will pay the government 4% of their gross revenue every year. Second, the regulator advised the Ministry to review its ban on private stations airing news and current affairs, currently a monopoly with All India Radio. In fact, TRAI stopped just short of asking for an outright removal of the ban. In response, the Ministry rejected revenue sharing stating that it would suffer a decrease in fee collections of over Rs 100 crore. It further argued against revenue sharing saying that it could not be sure it was getting its fair share from the stations because it could not verify the revenues of every radio station. But realising that it had to address the viability mess, a week ago the Ministry reportedly offered to ensure low license fees during new bidding, contradicting its earlier concerns about revenue decreases from lower fees. Revenue-sharing is more progressive because government fee inflows remain proportional to how well stations are doing. With fixed licence fees and static annual increases, this is not the case. The Ministry's sore point that it cannot monitor station revenues is a weak argument. Broadcasters are already paying service taxes on their revenues and their half-yearly statements are available with the ST authorities. The Ministry offers no evidence to show that radio broadcasters are a special lot that need to be singled out for special scrutiny. To TRAI's recommendation to review the ban on news, the Ministry has said the ban will remain. And here too, the 'monitoring' argument made an appearance. The Ministry feels it will be unable to monitor news on local stations and that this constituted a grave security threat. But are there grounds to allege that radio news broadcasters will be particularly cavalier on sensitive matters when their television counterparts have not been found against? In fact, anticipating this misplaced concern, TRAI did point out, correctly, that existing laws may be used to curb violations of radio programme code. WORRISOME INTRANSIGENCE But beneath this professed inability to comb our airwaves lies a worrisome intransigence that has afflicted every recent Central government. For years, New Delhi has been leaden-footed on instituting an independent broadcast regulator, preferring to arrogate this power to itself instead. A regulator with the mandate to create a level playing field is well suited to run a listener-driven complaints system to enforce the law on the air. This has been shown to be doable elsewhere. Second, in persisting with the current ban, the Ministry is only supporting AIR's continuing monopoly over radio news. Legally, the Ministry's positions stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of 1995, where the Court asked New Delhi to open up the airwaves and appoint an autonomous broadcast regulator. The ruling warned that the right of private citizens to telecast is subject only to reasonable restrictions. There is little doubt that the Ministry's outright ban on private FM stations airing news is a monopolistic restriction and will be found so in the courts. Perhaps it is too much to expect the Broadcasting Ministry alone to shape a more open future for radio. The responsibility lies ultimately with the Cabinet since in any case it must sign off on new policy. For its part, the Cabinet needs to look at one plain contradiction. New Delhi cannot have it both ways - holding off on instituting an independent regulator and at the same time throwing up its hands over the inability to enforce radio code. Indian radio desperately needs a course correction. http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct052004/edst.asp From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 12:16:08 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 10:16:08 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] DTH Radio Message-ID: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/9b6c1c0a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Prasar Bharati all set to launch DTH radio October 06 Vinod Behl Prasar Bharati is all set to launch radio channels on its DTH television platform. The 24-hour DTH service will provide different language channels, which will be available across India as well as in few neighbouring countries. The DTH radio channels are targeting regional language listeners living away from their native place and outside their language area. One will be able to listen to the programmes in mother tongue and stay up-dated with the happenings in the native city or state through DTH service on TV sets. These radio channels, however, will not be available on terrestrial broadcast and an ordinary radio receiver set cannot be tuned in to catch these signals. Prasar Bharati?s DTH radio service will cover all the prominent stations of the language area concerned, subject to the availability of linkage between the stations from where DTH programmes are up-linked and other radio stations in the language area. The radio channels will broadcast news and entertainment programmes with minimum education content. All India Radio will introduce DTH broadcasts in two phases. In the first phase, 10 digital radio channels will be launched while nine more will go on air in the second phase. ? exchange4media 2004 From gautam at i4donline.net Fri Oct 8 11:05:09 2004 From: gautam at i4donline.net (Gautam Navin) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:35:09 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Open invitation to all interested in submitting article for i4d Dec, 04 issue on e-Governance References: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007801c4ad15$eb3cdf10$7b6464c8@Gautam> Dear All, As you all might know that i4d publishes a monthly thematic magazine on ICT4D, we therefore invite all of you to contribute articles for December 2004 issue which is on e-Governance. We request you to send us articles, reports, snippets etc. for the same. Kindly limit your article to 3000 words. We welcome reviews of the books published since the year 2000. The book review should be within 1500 words and must contain the cover image of the respective book. Kindly send us the images of the author/s along with their breif profile. We would be grateful if author could send us some relevant images that can go along with the article. Images should be of good quality and must be scanned at the resolution of 300dpi. We archived all the previous isssues on www.i4donline.net and therefore suggest you to have a look of the same just for the sake references. The link of previous i4d issue on e-Governance is http://www.i4donline.net/issue/nov03/content.htm . Kindly send article as an attachment through email to gautam at i4donline.net .You can also submit article online at http://www.i4donline.net/submit_article.asp Kindly send us the article latest by November 20, 2004. Please feel free to ask for any further information or assistance. Looking forward to your positive reply. With best regards, Gautam Navin Research Associate, i4d ----------------------------------------- CSDMS G4, Sector-39 Noida 201 301, India Tel: +91 120 2502180 to 87 Fax: + 91 120 2500060 Mobile: +91 9818125257 Email: gautam at i4donline.net Web: www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- Subscribe to daily i4d newsletter: Log on to www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041008/a99541c8/attachment.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 11 09:49:48 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 11 Oct 2004 07:49:48 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] about private FM Message-ID: <20041011074948.4250.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041011/4c8c8da1/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- RADIO FAILS TO TUNE INTO RIGHT FREQUENCY October 11 Anushree Madan Mohan Given the Congress uproar at the General Elections and the party?s subsequent rise into power, what has been the impact on the radio industry? Is it still amounting to a process of endless negotiations and lack of a concrete initiative? Is political leadership perhaps shadowing the potential of this industry? To find answers to many such queries, exchange4media looked back in the history and reached out to some of the industry experts. In July 2003, the Union I&B Ministry set up Radio Broadcast Policy Committee, under the chairmanship of FICCI?s Amit Mitra, to work out a ?transparent and effective auction process? for allotment of radio frequencies. While the committee was entirely focused on commercial radio, there were some token references to policy for niche and non-commercial channels in its terms of reference. The committee brought out a report whose main concern was to ease the way for private FM broadcasters to switch from a license-fee regime to a revenue sharing system. In a more recent scheme of events, in 2004, New Delhi brought broadcasting under the definition of ?telecommunication services?, effectively making the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India the regulator for both radio and television. A month later, the ministry sent the Mitra Committee report to Trai, seeking ?appropriate recommendations?. Now that the recommendations have been made, elaborate deliberations are occurring on the same front. While it amounts to all reactions and no action from the ministry, there haven?t been sustained efforts from the private FM camp as well, claim certain quarters. Says AP Parigi, MD, Entertainment Network and CEO of Times Infotainment, ?All politicians in this country are aware of the problems that the radio industry is facing. The new government may be over a hundred days old, but it fully comprehends that the current system of licensing is slowly eroding all private FM stations. We have had intense talks with the government in the past, but post TRAI recommendations, there have been continued and lengthy deliberations on the part of the ministry and players are not too clear about the headway achieved on the same. Some part of the same could be attributed to the key players of the industry itself. A big regret is the inability to get the entire radio group to sit together on a regular basis and thrash out common issues.? He continues, ?Back in 2001, thanks to the McKinsey reports, we had brought in all the operators on a common platform via video conferencing to deal in an in-depth basis with the menace of licensing. With time, it?s become increasingly difficult to come together and to sort out issues such as licensing, octroi, service tax etc. So, now you find competition pulling off from certain areas, some have given notices to shut down and there are others that have actually shut down. By now, you should have had at least 400 radio stations in India. And here we are looking at who?s going to shut down next.? Despite all this, Parigi is hopeful to see some pro-active actions from the government?s side. He states, ?I am a positive person, and I?m sure that our efforts would yield to some noteworthy reforms from the government?s side which would pave way to some other form of revenue sharing, rather than the current licensing regime.? Talking to exchange4media, a Radio Mid-Day spokesperson asserts, ?Things are in a flux at the moment with the government deliberating over the Trai recommendations and the lack of a solid foundation as far as players are concerned. It would be a lot more beneficial to the industry as a whole if we had a committee for the radio industry, which could look after the overall interests and lobby hard on the government?s front. After the elections things are in a standstill with no clear action being taken from either party. In plain language, the radio industry is still stuck in a limbo.? Jagadesh Babu, Financial Controller, Music Broadcast Private Limited (Radio City), asserts, ?We are still waiting for the opinion of the I&B Ministry on the recommendations from the task force and Trai. It is my belief that the private FM players have been working very hard to put together a united front and to represent the problems to the ministry over the last few years ? a fact which has remained unchanged even in recent times. As far as the committee beat is concerned, in order to organise the category better, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation has set up a radio sub committee and is keen to represent the private FM radio group.? However, as one looks deep into the Indian radio industry, lots of interesting things keep coming up. In August 1953, BV Keskar, a puritanical minister in charge of the information and broadcasting domain, delivered a broadside on commercial broadcasting. Commercial radio, as he said, would fall into the clutches of foreign interests and become a slave to advertising revenue. These forces, Keskar had warned, were ?bound to bring down the quality of radio programmes and convert them into a cheap vaudeville show?. Long fifty years have gone. Commercial radio is back on its agenda, but it is still lying unresolved. ? exchange4media 2004 From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 13 11:01:36 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 13 Oct 2004 09:01:36 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041013/e2aa9137/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, Oct 20). The information is not on the TRAI website yet, so we'll have to wait for a while for venue details etc. I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. Sajan. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 Frederick Noronha(FN) wrote : >Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI's) advisor Mr Bhattacharya phone to say that they would be having specific open house discussions in Delhi (Monday) on Oct 18 and in Mumbai on Oct 20 (Wednesday). The adverts for the same are to be announced in the papers shortly. He was just giving us advance notice. Could those in either of the cities kindly plan some initiatives? FN From arunlists at softhome.net Wed Oct 13 13:20:55 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:50:55 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: "sajan venniyoor" This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, > Oct 20). ... > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but > do we have a choice? Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he mentioned that they need a proper definition of community radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. I have a problem with any definition that prevents law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue share one, for making access to community radio more restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not just have one FM radio policy? > Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the open house discussion will be the list of questions in the discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. Arun ___ >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, what is different now? I remember, that at the time when Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The government would like to deny certain groups access to broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way at least people from other communities can hear what is being said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. Such an archive would not just have a negative, control function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content between community radio stations, which would save a lot by reduced reinventing of the wheel. I also believe that there is urgent need for internal discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio could counteract this. ? Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of community radio, would be for the government to ask each applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. The government must then insist that the station ensure fair access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why does the government? Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an obvious argument. Sincerely, Arun Mehta From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 14 09:47:26 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 14 Oct 2004 07:47:26 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/227c9f66/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Here's TRAI's Notice on their Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues Related to Community Radio". I am also appending the Issues for Consultation (from TRAI's Consultation Paper on CR). Sajan. ------ TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA A-2/14, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI ? 110029. The TRAI will be holding Open House Discussion in Delhi and Mumbai on the following subject at the date, venue and time given below:- Licensing issues related to Community Radio 18.10.2004(Monday) Kautilya Hall, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 10.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. 20.10.2004(Wednesday) Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All interested agencies / individuals are invited to participate. The consultation paper is available on the TRAI Website www.trai.gov.in. Issues posed for public consultation will also be available at the venue of the Open House Discussion. For any clarification, please contact Shri Rakesh Kacker, Advisor (B&CS), Ph. 011-26713291, Fax. 011-26713442, email: rkacker at trai.gov.in. ---------------------- Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? f) What should be the period of license? g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in Thu Oct 14 11:17:38 2004 From: drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in (DRISHTI) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:47:38 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Answers to TRAI References: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007501c4b1cf$37278520$9b31013d@mypc> we [drishti & kmvs] will not be able to make it to the TRAI consultations on 18th and 20th. but hopefully some of will be there. most of the questions this consultations seeks to address have been raised by our group time and again..yet i am putting down answers to some of them so that those going to the consultation can raise it on our behalf. HERE GOES... Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? THE CR STATION SHOULD BE OWNED, CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY THE COMMUNITY WITH NOT-FOR-PROFIT MOTIVE b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? YES. c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? INDIAN CITIZENS d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? NO e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? NON-LEGAL APPLICANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS REGISTER THE PROPOSED CR STATION IN THE INTERIM PERIOD OF APPLICATION AND THE ACTUAL LICENSE BEING GRANTED. f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? YES. INFACT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE NOT ON THE TYPE OF ORGANISATION APPLYING BUT THAT THE APPLICANT OPERATES THE CR STATION FOR NON-PROFIT AND COMMUNITY DRIVEN PURPOSES. Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? YES. IF THE APPLICANT SO DESIRES b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? THAT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO EASEN THE PROCESS. INFACT THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE WINDOW FOR CLEARING APPLICATIONS c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? YES. d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? YES. 6 MONTHS f) What should be the period of license? 3 YEARS MINIMUM g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? 50 KILOMETER RADIUS. h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOCATE FREQUENCIES FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR CR STATIONS i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? THE PROPOSED CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ANY 'LEGAL' GRANTS, WHETHER FROM THE STATE, CENTRE OR FOREIGN AGENCIES b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? YES. OUR INTENTION SHOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF THE STATION WITH A PURPOSE NOT-FOR-PROFIT. SO ALL REVENUES WILL HAVE TO PLOUGHED BACK INTO RUNNING THE COMMUNITY DRIVEN STATION UNLIKE PRIVATE FM RADIOS WHERE PROFITS GO INTO PRIVATE POCKETS. c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? YES. THE CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ALL 'LEGAL' SOURCES OF MONEY d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? NO. WE NEED TO KEEP REMINDING OURSELVES THAT CR STATIONS ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT VENTURES FOR AND BY THE COMMUNITY. THE GOVERMENT CANNOT DISCOURAGE OR PENALISE THIS VENTURE WITH A FEE! e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? YES. THATS THE MINIMUM THE GOVERMENT SHOULD CONTRIBUTE IN THIS WHOLE VENTURE CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO INVEST ANY MONEY IN SETTING UP THESE STATIONS. Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? CR STATIONS CAN FOLLOW THE EXISITING AIR PROGRAMME CODE b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? WHY SHOULD IT CONTINUE? WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? YES. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY RELGIOUS PROGRAMMES? THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION WITH PROGRAMMES WITH RELIGIOUS [OR POLITICAL] CONTENT. WHAT WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR IS PROGRAMMES THAT MAY HARM COMMUNAL, RELIGIOUS HARMONY OR IS AGAINST ANY CONSTITUTIONALY ENSHRINED PRINCIPALS OF DEMOCRACY. Hope and wish that consulation is meaningful and fruitful!! In harmony, Stalin K. For, Drishti Media Collective & Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/f8fa6731/attachment.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 08:35:05 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:05 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> Message-ID: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Arun and others, On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think it?s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because that means he (trusting his credentials for the moment) is actually thinking about it, especially because of the perception that revenue-sharing must be exempt for CR licenses. (I think that perception is problematic). But on the DEFINTION bug, here's a bit on the South African experience. SA and India in particular have much in common particularly in terms of the concern that usually gets centred around the term 'commmunity'. We have caste and relgious stratification in India and SA has been recently rebuilding its institutions from the legacy of massive racial divisions. I had the good fortune recently of running into the Nov 2003 Ph.D thesis of Tanja E Bosch that studied Bush Radio of Cape Town, South Africa in depth. The thesis is titled 'Radio, community, and identity in South Africa: A rhizomatic study of Bush Radio in Cape Town" (289 pp. I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this list who may want it. I've taken the liberty of reproducing text from a few parts of the thesis. I am pretty sure the May I&B-UNDP consultations would have had at least some folks who are/were already familiar with this. But many others on this list may not be. The dissertation was done to the College of Communication, Ohio University: BEGIN QUOTES, Courtesy of Tanja E Bosch's paper: What constitutes community radio? "The key concepts underlying community media are access, participation and self-management (Lewis, 1993). The public is brought closer to communication systems through their ability to access materials and the availability of a range of relevant materials. Access includes feedback, whereby audience members interact directly with producers of messages, participate during the broadcast of programs, and are encouraged to comment and criticize. Participation implies the widespread involvement of ordinary people at the levels of production, decision-making, management and planning. Self-management is thus the height of participation, through which the target audience exercises decision-making on all levels. (Lewis, 1993)" Who is the 'community'? "While Bush Radio has always targeted a specific geographic area, after the end of apartheid and abolition of the Group Areas Act, black people are no longer concentrated in those areas. Furthermore, the station's broadcast range extends to areas outside of the Cape Flats, and many listeners call the station from these areas. The audience is no longer a black audience. Some white presenters work at the station, and there are many calls from white South Africans. The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community as a group of people who are interested in alternative information". END QUOTES Revenue sharing and CR: I am personally of the opinion that TRAI is not siezed of the differences between the various sources of funds that a CR station may use for its operations. Only some cash inflows of a CR station may be subjectable to revenue-sharing under the same terms as commercial-FM licensees (say 4%, if ever that happens, as per TRAI recommendations for the commercial FM operators). If only non-profit organizations are given CR licenses, many of the cash inflows to stations could become exempt from revenue shares, as they must be. For all grants, listener payments/memberships etc that come into a station for funding its expenses, the government must not ask for a revenue-share, since these moneys are technically donations. This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This way no special organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR alone -- something that will bog everything down further. Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little experience of the latter, in radio. If a CR station earns Rs.1 lakh in a given year on underwriting (i.e. the station will announce the name of the program supporter/organization/group along with a slogan/line about that group, as opposed to airing an AD of that entity), those revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). -Subbu > -----Original Message----- > From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net > [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Arun Mehta > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:21 AM > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? > > > > From: "sajan venniyoor" > This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai > (Wednesday, > > Oct 20). ... > > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our > strategy, and > > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, > done that... but > > do we have a choice? > > Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? > > Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he > mentioned that they need a proper definition of community > radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations > will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. > > I have a problem with any definition that prevents > law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- > as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community > radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if > some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument > holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of > revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special > facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom > it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? > > What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue > share one, for making access to community radio more > restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not > just have one FM radio policy? > > > Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template > for the open > > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. > > >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the > open house discussion will be the list of questions in the > discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. > Arun > ___ > >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: > The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, > what is different now? I remember, that at the time when > Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people > pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between > a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have > computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily > for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do > mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this > distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have > access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. > > Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding > up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the > direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of > Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right > to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. > Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? > > Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The > government would like to deny certain groups access to > broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It > fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is > that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and > does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading > through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread > rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we > are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather > than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way > at least people from other communities can hear what is being > said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The > government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is > broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and > newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. > Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle > such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to > enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council > receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything > broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a > central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A > single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. > Such an archive would not just have a negative, control > function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content > between community radio stations, which would save a lot by > reduced reinventing of the wheel. > > I also believe that there is urgent need for internal > discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or > temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, > allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio > could counteract this. ? > > Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of > community radio, would be for the government to ask each > applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. > The government must then insist that the station ensure fair > access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. > > Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by > Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a > model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to > reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish > or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free > speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between > radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why > does the government? > > Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the > government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an > obvious argument. > > Sincerely, > > Arun Mehta > From vvcrishna at softhome.net Fri Oct 15 10:45:31 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:15:31 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 11:35 PM -0700 10/14/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this >list who may want it. Yes, please. >The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community >as a group of people who are >interested in alternative information. This is the beauty and strength of broadcast, that the potential audience is anyone within reach. To make the community meaningful, as we have seen in countless examples, there has to be a sense of connectedness - for the least developed parts of this country, obviously such connectedness cannot arise from tele-links (ie phone-ins and the like), hence our focus (at Radiophony, I mean) on low power rather than community as the defining characteristic. If I may add some small amount of personal experience, I met Zane Ibrahim, Bush Radio's founder, in Kathmandu last year. I never got the impression that he was xenophobic, or would favor xenophobia, in any way - quite the opposite. On the other hand, SA's regulatory authority, ICASA, was also represented at AMARC-8, and its position was loudly reminiscent of our own besaddled bureaucrats - "radio is capable of being greatly misused", "do not allow it to fall into the wrong hands", "terrorists are just waiting to get their hands on it", you know the sort of thing. Fortunately for us, TRAI appears to have a better handle on things. We also have a notable track record in India of powerful and violent alternate political movements - and none of them use radio to foment local unrest. Is it that the medium just does not work for this purpose? In a recent report from Nepal that we must all have read, the incipient MCC radio station/s seem to have run into the same problem - propaganda does not make for listenership, nor is it effective for disseminating violence. Whether TRAI's recommendations will be taken seriously is another matter, but at least this is the window through which we have a chance to be heard. Let us not waste this opportunity by aiming too low. >This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that >licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit >organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This >way no special >organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR >alone -- something that will bog everything down further. This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is wishful, I am afraid. It won't be easy for the more deprived to undertake what may seem to us city dwellers to be a routine deal of paperwork, or even to comprehend the necessity for it. Why create this problem? The Act and its judicious enforcement are in any case far from perfect. >The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial >advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was >addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial >CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, >the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of >station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make >CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue >generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). Nothing exists in a vacuum. Communication development through the very first stage of ICT - FM - will not end here. Once media awareness is created, we will logically and rationally expect other forms of ICT to be introduced, since a demand for them will evolve. Audio streams may become available on the Net, for instance. Will revenues from Net subscribers be counted in the revenue sharing model? Will ads placed on the site be counted? Will T-shirt or handicraft sales generated from the site also be counted towards station revenues under this heading? Is it really necessary (or even possible) to dot every single 'i' and cross every single 't' ad nauseam before a genuinely development oriented policy can be conceptualised? In our submission to TRAI the first time round, we opined that a new policy is needed speedily, one that will encourage the flowering of tens of thousands, not hundreds, of stations. Some of these will fail, probably, and not just because of poor policy planning. Why add hundreds of clauses of a needlessly detailed policy to the list of possible reasons for failure? Surely we need not be ashamed to announce a genuinely interim policy for the next five years, in the expectation that we will all be much wiser with actual experience of local radio under the belt? The previous 'wisdom' has already been shown up, so rather than merely try to do one better this time round, a truly liberally oriented policy may open up this sector to create the foundation for a genuine information revolution. Revenue exploitation may also come about better when there is something to tax, something better scaled to a nation of a billion people and 600k villages. Currently we have 28 (and that number is dwindling) stations running in the 42 cities and towns for which licenses have been granted, according to today's Indian Express, Mumbai edition. And get SACFA and WPC out of the way, they have not yet learned their job is facilitation, not official terrorism. -- Vickram From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:27:09 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 15 Oct 2004 11:27:09 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041015/e8c47cf8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it?s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the ?community? is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 07:54:19 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:24:19 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> References: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 11:27 AM +0000 10/15/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and >cultural needs of the specific community it serves. Just a point to reflect on here: commercial channels in Mumbai and other cities tend to broadcast in Hindi far more than in English, despite the apparent English-language bias of the yuppies who appear to form their major listener strength, judging from the actual content. Can anyone argue that these channels are not reflecting the needs of their particular communities, far more accurately than could be judged by looking at the language of newspapers that aim at the same audience? There are quizzes and many many interactive programmes that examine urban issues, and at least in Mumbai the traffic reporting (highly critical in a linear city that moves over two million people around per hour in the crush periods) is almost completely listener-driven. Very empirical, but those three phrases cover 'educational', 'cultural' and 'developmental'. Collaborating to divide the use of spectrum between different classes of users is inviting potentially antagonistic and conflicting behaviour between them. This has already been visible in the previous Open House, especially here in Mumbai. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 08:54:26 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:54:26 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <00d801c4b34d$007dbab0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, ~~minor error in earlier message. I meant to say that TRAI does NOT seem to be aware of underwriting/advertising differential. Also, second error, I meant to say that perhaps underwriting revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are NOT commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. I realize in your experience (India) that underwriting may have fudged long enough advertising, but this isn't so everywhere (country). ~~~the defintions issue: My understanding is that TRAI's advisor/others already have access to the report from the I&B-UNDP meeting and through that, the particular CR definitions you cite as well. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of 'development/NGO' sounding definitions, but I'd also be the first to agree that there's little point in having a hair splitting exercise over perceptions and definitions in themselves. There's plenty of definitions flying around, and given that TRAI did some upfront research before setting many of their questions, my guess would be that they are not unfamiliar with the trends in thinking. The question to be asked it seems is WHY TRAI is raising the definition issue now. They didn't deem it fit to make it an all important question in the CR paper. (maybe better late than never it will get hashed out again at the consultations). -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:27 AM To: A list on community radio in India Subject: Re: RE: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it's a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the 'community' is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 09:14:25 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:14:25 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were > adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban > agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the > problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in > banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs > are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. > > They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and > expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered > under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is > wishful, I am afraid. Vickram, I acknowledge there are several answers to the 'legal entity' question, and hopefully this will get throughput at the consultations next week. But I suspect you are misreading my remarks. Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. -Subbu From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Sat Oct 16 10:59:48 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:29:48 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: Hi all, I want to know of any prospect/project of running community radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and policy implications for such initiatives? Regards, Atanu Atanu Garai ICT Advocacy Officer OneWorld South Asia C- 2/6, Safdurjung Development Area New Delhi - 110016 India. T +91 11 51756975 F +91 11 51756976 E atanu.garai at oneworld.net www.digitalopportunity.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041016/9b30146b/attachment.htm From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 11:29:15 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:59:15 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 12:14 AM -0700 10/16/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of >NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for >licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is >already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. Not at all. I am not in favor of any exclusionary policy, that is all I want to say. I say nothing about the worthiness of any NGO. There certainly are many whose work is exemplary. The Charitable Societies Act or whatever it is called should not be the starting point, it is setting the bar too high. >We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to >get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be >broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups >that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural >India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users >associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to >applicants from here first and then look at other situations where >no organizing exists at all. Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have a working base of operational stations? Do you think if a village had a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? An ideal interim policy would be inclusive, with exclusionary principles being added on a need basis only after real evidence is collected. Unlike some others, including government officers whose quotes have been seen in the local and international press, I have an abiding faith in both the Constitution and in the people of India. Not necessarily in that order, or in any order, mind you. -- Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 13:12:21 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:42:21 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 20:30:10 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:30:10 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <013901c4b3ae$3108d3c0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest > number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have > a working base of operational stations? I don't disagree with this at all. It's a good thing to be inclusionary, rather than restrictive, and let experiences tell, like you point out. But these are high level principles and nuances that you and I can agree should guide the devil and its details. What I'm unable to visualize how this might work in practice though. > Do you think if a village had > a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? I realize that in practice a handful of individuals can telecast over a few kms with a 1W-50W transmitter out of a room with a terrace. But look at the problem from the point of view of the license assigner. Who should a license be given to in terms of fixing ownership of process and even the few silly formalities that will necessary from to time? An individual? It looks like we're both visualizing different situations. Explain a little more about how an 'unincorporated' entity will maintain accounts, file tax statements, WITHOUT mixing up the individuals' own finances with it. What if the individual had a disagreement with someone else (very very common in India) and decided to move with his/her license to some other village/town? Also, forgetting these things for the moment -- what really concerns many is that I&B is unable (YET) to come to terms quickly with allowing commercial-FM stations air news! That's our starting point! I don't say that means we should water ourselves down and not assert for the rainbow with TRAI. But perhaps what we ask must be understood and packaged by TRAI in such a way that the quickest middle path can be found to get an open-policy rolled out and scalp away and other things as we go along. (again like you point out, assuming that I&B will even take TRAI seriously). -Subbu From arunlists at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 05:36:50 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:06:50 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041017090650.169617681.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: Subramaniam Vincent > We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to > get > > the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad > enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that > are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is > covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et > > al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and > then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. It is hard to get the government to reopen a policy debate. Now that we have the opportunity, we should ask for a sensible policy. Please remember, that by agreeing to a criterion for "allowing" an organisation to run a community radio station, we are giving the government an excuse to deny people such access. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but could someone tell me why it should be any harder to get permission to start a radio station, than to start a newspaper, assuming, of course, that spectrum isn't a constraint? Does Article 19 of the Constitution mean nothing to us? Are we not prepared to defend it? Arun From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 18:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio Message-ID: Forwarding this snippet, partly in response to Atanu's mail and partly cos we had a bit of discussion earlier if I recall rightly, about using iTrip with the iPod. >From: Shekhar Krishnan >Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio >Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:44:29 +0530 > > > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: andy at remotelinux.com >Date: 8 October 2004 1.32.52 GMT+05:30 >To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net >Subject: Re: Neighborhood Public Radio >Reply-To: andy at remotelinux.com > >on this thread a relevent topic may be podcasting, a concept im taking to >mean as audio blogging but is expanding to other areas. namely how >http://rhzradio.net/ is taking the idea of microradio a step further, >encouraging volunteers to setup a micro transmitter in their home for less >then $100 to broadcast the station via a distributed-model and within the >law. when this is multiplexed to include video and text a generation of >multimedia networks to over (or under) shadow corporate media jaugernauts >will exist. the information wants to be free. its a no brainer to take >this a step further with dynamic dns to add a layer of cost free domain >system that can exist with dns and existing networks to expand free >comminication channels without the domination of monetary and legal >interferences. viva libre. > >andy > > > > > ># distributed via : no commercial use without permission ># is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, ># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets ># more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body ># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net > > >_____ > >Shekhar Krishnan >9, Supriya, 2nd Floor >Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road no.4 >Dadar, Mumbai 400014 >India > >http://crit.org.in/members/shekhar -- Vickram From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Mon Oct 18 06:56:44 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:26:44 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am aware of this that practically WLAN can not replace the model of community radio we are thinking of. Or at least radio seems to have high degree of mobility with good reception quality, that WLAN cant provide. I am trying to explore how much a community could save and per head expenses if all needful ICT applications could run over a single community network infrastructure. That perhaps will make sense even we take into account very low per capita income of rural India in developmental context. It seems wi-fi has promises of being all inclusive ICT infrastructure, even integrating cellular phone calls. Policy (both recommendations from TRAI and DOT-WPC) seems to be favorable for establishing community network, but we can see the prospect of such network only when it is brought out. Regards, Atanu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net]On Behalf Of Vickram Crishna Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:42 PM To: A list on community radio in India Cc: India-Gii Subject: Re: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/2a596292/attachment.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 18 11:50:49 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 18 Oct 2004 09:50:49 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/ee466e41/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I?ll share some first impressions with you. (I?m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). The meeting was fairly well attended ? we counted some 26 heads (not including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other?s territory and the whole thing will land in court. ?Give me figures that I can use,? he said. We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a single hertz of the spectrum without a fight. Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply that already apply to other media like print and TV.) TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so unilaterally. Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. Sajan.? From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 08:46:17 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 06:46:17 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Mumbai on 20 Oct 2004 Message-ID: <20041019064617.24151.qmail@webmail9.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/2cd31d85/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear Chandita and others, TRAI's Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues related to Community Radio" will be held tomorrow in Mumbai. Date: 20.10.2004 (Wednesday) Venue: Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai Time: 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All the members on this list who live in (and around) Mumbai should make a valiant attempt to attend the meeting. Rope in a few journos, if you can. Just for the record, TRAI also serves a pretty decent lunch! Sajan. From arunlists at softhome.net Tue Oct 19 09:14:35 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:44:35 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> References: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041019124435.308580065.arunlists@softhome.net> Two issues need urgent attention. Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc to the private sector. They are likely to move over to revenue sharing, but aren't yet there. In order not to charge community radio these fees, a clear distinction is needed. Now, what kind of definition can we live with? The kind that does not exclude any genuine entity wishing to start a community radio station? Second intruiging possibility, we can claim, for community radio, public broadcaster status. That way, we get access to reserved frequencies, and other benefits that government seeks to secure for Prasar Bharati. Do we want to try for that now, or wait until community stations are stable? Anyway, community radio definition first, and for good measure, of public service broadcasting. At http://www.rabe.ch/kulturradio/kulturradio_eng.html I found Definition of a community radio (in accordance with www.amrac.org) Community radios ... 1. ... promote the right to communication and facilitate the freedom of speech, encourage creative and diverse statements and contribute to a democratic process and a pluralistic society. 2. ... provide education and production possibilities and are responsible for the transmission. They encourage local creative talents, cultivate local traditions and broadcast an entertaining, educational and development promoting programme for its listeners. 3. ... secure the ownership of the radio in a way, that it is owned by local representatives of a visible community or an interest community. 4. ... are editorially independent of governments, trade, religious institutions and political parties in the compilation of their radio programme. 5. ... make sure that marginalised groups and minorities have access to the radio and secure as well as promote cultural and linguistic diversity. 6. ... make sure that the listeners receive information on the base of multiple sources and points of view and allow space for opposing points of view from each person or organisation. 7. ... are organisations, which work on a non-profit basis in order to maintain their independency and are financed by a multitude of donors. 8. ... recognise and respect voluntary work and acknowledge the right of paid work for organisational matters and for the elaboration of working structures, which are beneficial for all people involved. 9. ... elaborate management forms, programme structures and working conditions, which rule out any discrimination and are accessible to all people involved, employees and voluntary helpers alike. 10. ... maintain communication with other community radios in order to promote and raise understanding on peace questions, tolerance, democracy and development. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Public%20service%20broadcasting says Public service broadcasting (often abbreviated to PSB) A public service broadcaster is not broadcasting for commercial ends but rather aims at social betterment. For this reason, PSB is often incompatible with commercial stations. For the same reason, it is often seen as being overly paternalistic in nature. Perhaps the most famous example of a "public service broadcaster" (in theory if not in practice) is the BBC. There is no standard definition of what PSB is exactly, although a number of official bodies have attempted to pick out the key characteristics. The Broadcasting Research Unit lists the following: * Geographic universality - that the stations' broadcasts are available nationwide, with no exception .. * Catering for all interests and tastes ... * Catering for minorities - much as above, but with racial and sexual minorities etc. ... * Concern for national identity and community - this essentially means that the stations should in the most part commission programmes from within the country, which may be more expensive than importing shows from abroad. * Detachment from vested interests and government - in other words, programming should be impartial, and the stations should not pander to the desires of advertisers or government. In practice however, such impartiality is questionable, even with the BBC. ... * One broadcasting system to be directly funded by the corpus of users ... * Competition in good programming rather than numbers - quality is the prime concern with a true public service broadcaster. ... * Guidelines to liberate programme makers and not restrict them - in the UK, guidelines, and not laws, govern what a programme maker can and cannot do, although these guidelines can be backed up by hefty penalties. Arun > ------------Original Message------------ > From: sajan venniyoor > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Date: Mon, Oct-18-2004 3:21 PM > Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions > > Dear all, > > The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I?ll share some > first impressions with you. (I?m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone > else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). > > The meeting was fairly well attended ? we counted some 26 heads (not > including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, > Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal > (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK > Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. > > The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria > (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. > > Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is > concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one > distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear > distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of > area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement > revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, > sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other?s territory and the > whole thing will land in court. ?Give me figures that I can use,? he > said. > > We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some > figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by > commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi > team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a > single hertz of the spectrum without a fight.? > > Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, > eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that > eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply > that already apply to other media like print and TV.) > > TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, > work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations > without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so > unilaterally. > > Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in > Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. > > Sajan.? > > > _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 12:23:20 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 10:23:20 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/6fc0f0e3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let?s take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 07:59:09 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:59:09 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <002401c4b669$f0efb880$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other related rulings/laws) would serve as the legal framework that the SC itself might use to check whether a policy for commercial and non-commercial licensing is conformant and if not, which parties need relief. Given that, the question of distinction and policy parameters (for items Sajan has lined up) becomes more specific. 1. What distinctions will be legally tenable? 2. Which parameters of this list that TRAI was figures are likely be to the most contentious? Members on this list who've already studied this matter for other countries (within their respective legal frameworks) can perhaps focus the conversation here. -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:23 AM To: cr-india at sarai.net Subject: Re: Re: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let's take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/588f3ee8/attachment.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 08:07:52 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:07:52 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <003401c4b66b$28a64e00$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other related rulings/laws) would serve as the legal framework that the SC itself might use to check whether a policy for commercial and non-commercial licensing is conformant and if not, which parties need relief. Given that, the question of distinction and policy parameters (for items Sajan has lined up) becomes more specific. 1. What distinctions will be legally tenable? 2. Which parameters of this list that TRAI was figures are likely be to the most contentious? Members on this list who've already studied this matter for other countries (within their respective legal frameworks) can perhaps focus the conversation here. -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:23 AM To: cr-india at sarai.net Subject: Re: Re: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let's take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 09:10:00 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:10:00 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] A GRAIN OF RICE FOR COMMUNITY RADIO Message-ID: A GRAIN OF RICE FOR COMMUNITY RADIO ----------------------------------- (18 oct 2004) Community Radio Madanpokhara (CRM) of Nepal, a community-owned radio station, has adopted a novel idea to financing its activities. Local villagers has donated rice and money worth USD 650 to run the station. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96199/1138/6904 From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 09:10:44 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:10:44 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP Message-ID: NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP -------------------------------------------------------- (18 oct 2004) The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA) in partnership with Anna University is going to organise an international workshop on community radio from 13 to 18 December, 2004 in New Delhi. Managers of community radio stations will learn techniques of installation, commissioning and management of the radio stations in the workshop. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96182/1138/6904 From ashishmukherjee at hotmail.com Wed Oct 20 11:33:40 2004 From: ashishmukherjee at hotmail.com (ashish mukherjee) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:33:40 +0000 Subject: [cr-india] INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP IN CHENNAI Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041020/c92750c1/attachment.htm From sreedher at annauniv.edu Wed Oct 20 11:44:57 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:14:57 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP Message-ID: <200410200944.i9K9ivbf002216@ns.annauniv.edu> The workshop is being held at Chennai and not New Delhi. regards sreedher > NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP > -------------------------------------------------------- > (18 oct 2004) The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia > (CEMCA) in partnership with Anna University is going to organise an > international workshop on community radio from 13 to 18 December, > 2004 in New Delhi. Managers of community radio stations will learn > techniques of installation, commissioning and management of the radio > stations in the workshop. > http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96182/1138/69 04 > _______________________________________________ > cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From radio at oneworld.net Wed Oct 20 14:38:02 2004 From: radio at oneworld.net (radio at oneworld.net) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:38:02 +0100 Subject: [cr-india] OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update Message-ID: <1098275882.41765c2a5251b@your.oneworld.net> OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update *************************************************** WIN SONY DVD CAMCORDER OR MINIDSK WALKMAN Great news for everyone sending in entries for the OneWorld/MTV Staying Alive 2004 AUDIO and VIDEO Competition...there are now even more prizes to be won. In addition to having your PSA (Public Service Announcement) streamed on both OneWorld and MTV's websites and receiving a glass plaque commemorating your achievement, thanks to donation by SONY (www.sony.com), winners will also receive equipment to help create future productions. VIDEO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY DVD Camcorder. AUDIO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY minidisk walkman. The deadline for submission of entries is fast approaching - 11th November 2004- so there's no time to spare in the race to complete those short audio clips. Remember each PSA you enter must be between 30-60 seconds, should inform viewers about HIV/AIDS and have a specific focus on women and girls. The competition is only open to young people aged between 15 and 34 years of age. ***For more information about the competition see the main competition pages... for AUDIO: http://aidsradio.oneworld.net/section/aidsradio/wad2004 for VIDEO: http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?article=33 ***If you would like an entry pack email to you, write to us at radio at oneworld.net (AUDIO) or tv at oneworld.net (VIDEO), putting in the subject line "OneWorld/MTV 2004 Competition" We look forward to receiving your entries. OneWorld Radio&TV From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 17:36:47 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:36:47 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] OneWorld / MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:07 +0100 From: radio at oneworld.net Subject: OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update *************************************************** WIN SONY DVD CAMCORDER OR MINIDSK WALKMAN Great news for everyone sending in entries for the OneWorld/MTV Staying Alive 2004 AUDIO and VIDEO Competition...there are now even more prizes to be won. In addition to having your PSA (Public Service Announcement) streamed on both OneWorld and MTV's websites and receiving a glass plaque commemorating your achievement, thanks to donation by SONY (www.sony.com), winners will also receive equipment to help create future productions. VIDEO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY DVD Camcorder. AUDIO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY minidisk walkman. The deadline for submission of entries is fast approaching - 11th November 2004- so there's no time to spare in the race to complete those short audio clips. Remember each PSA you enter must be between 30-60 seconds, should inform viewers about HIV/AIDS and have a specific focus on women and girls. The competition is only open to young people aged between 15 and 34 years of age. ***For more information about the competition see the main competition pages... for AUDIO: http://aidsradio.oneworld.net/section/aidsradio/wad2004 for VIDEO: http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?article=33 ***If you would like an entry pack email to you, write to us at radio at oneworld.net (AUDIO) or tv at oneworld.net (VIDEO), putting in the subject line "OneWorld/MTV 2004 Competition" We look forward to receiving your entries. OneWorld Radio&TV From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 18:11:23 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:11:23 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] Radio Manifesto now available in 5 languages Message-ID: From: "Sarah McNeill" Subject: Radio Manifesto now available in 5 languages Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:36:40 +0100 X-Priority: 3 The Radio Manifesto document http://www.worldradioforum.org/icyrmanifesto.shtml can now be downloaded in Portuguese, French, Spanish and English from the World Radio Forum website, and in Russian from the FYCE website (go to Radio Manifesto and click on the FYCE link for the Russian version). World Radio Forum thanks partner organisations, 4WSMCA Brazil (Portuguese); Plan West Africa media team (French); Instituto de Defensa Legal,Peru (Spanish); and the Foundation of Youth Culture & Education (FYCE), Ukraine (Russian), for the work they have completed in translating the Radio Manifesto text. Sarah McNeill Director World Radio Forum www.worldradioforum.org You can read or download the Radio Manifesto for free in these languanges. English The Radio Manifesto (English Word document in RTF format) Click to read or Right Click and select "Save to your computer." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifesto.rtf The Radio Manifesto (English PDF) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifesto.pdf Portuguese Manifesto do R?dio (Documento do Word em portugu?s no formato RTF) Clique para ler ou clique com o bot?o direito e selecione "salvar no seu computador." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoPortuguese.rtf Manifesto do R?dio (PDF em portugu?s) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoPortuguese.pdf French Manifeste Radio (Document francais Word en format RTF) Cliquez pour lire ou cliquez ? droite et choisisez 'Sauvegarder' pour enregistrer le document sur votre ordinateur. http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoFrench.rtf Manifeste Radio (Fran?ais en format PDF) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoFrench.pdf Spanish El Manifiesto de Radio (La versi?n en espa?ol est? disponible en formato RTF) Haga Click para la opci?n de lectura o Click derecho y seleccione "Grabar en su computadora u ordenador." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoSpanish.rtf El Manifiesto de Radio (Versi?n PDF en Espa?ol) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoSpanish.pdf Russian The Radio Manifesto (Russian Word Docuument and PDF format) is available at the FYCE web site (Foundation of Youth Culture and Education) http://www.fyce.org The Radio Manifesto is open for further contributions from children's & youth radio groups. If you would like your youth group to contribute to the Manifesto, contact WRF Director Sarah McNeill at smcn at worldradioforum.org . From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 07:29:14 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 05:29:14 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/8dbeadad/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >As far as rural areas are concerned, nobody is going there. I would oppose any license fee there at all. As Baijal has pointed out, defining 'rural coverage' is notoriously difficult. Even AIR's Local Radio Stations, with 6 kW transmitters, cover a considerable rural landscape even though they are situated in smaller cities and towns. If you remember, TRAI has recommended that commercial FM stations should be permitted 50 kW transmitters. And TRAI wants every town with over 1 lakh population to have a commercial FM channel. >I think the TRAI is amenable to the newspaper model. Many of the participants at the meeting seemed to support the basic stand. What exactly is a newspaper model? And how would it work in the context of radio, especially since commercial FM has been prescribed a radically different broadcast model? >If a justification is needed for why we want preferential treatment as compared to commercial radio, it is this: we serve a socially useful purpose. We disseminate the kind of information government often wants and needs disseminated. More importantly, we allow the voices of the poor people to reach back. Forgive me for saying this, but the Government's perception of the potential of CR (and the voices of the poor) is somewhat different. Most of us would remember this quote from a former Secretary, I&B: "As of today we don't think that villagers are equipped to run radio stations. People are unprepared, and it could become a platform to air provocative, political content that doesn't serve any purpose except to divide people. It is fraught with danger." >So, could we please discuss definition? Under what circumstances would one say, this is community radio, or this isn't? How do we define CR in terms of carriage, other than by putting numbers to various technical and commercial parameters? TRAI is the regulator for carriage, not content. Sajan. From arunlists at softhome.net Thu Oct 21 08:02:34 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:32:34 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> References: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041021113234.385498238.arunlists@softhome.net> we need to meet to stop going round in circles. > As Baijal has pointed out, defining 'rural coverage' is notoriously > difficult. Even AIR's Local Radio Stations, with 6 kW transmitters, cover > a considerable rural landscape even though they are situated in smaller > cities and towns. If you remember, TRAI has recommended that commercial > FM stations should be permitted 50 kW transmitters. And TRAI wants > every town with over 1 lakh population to have a commercial FM channel. One FM channel means nothing. Each community requires different programming. If defining rural is difficult, let us drop the term, say "deprived area" in FM terms, as all those places having less than 25% of the possible number of FM stations. To start with, the whole country is a deprived area, but that might change. What we are saying, that where the spectrum is grossly underutilized, there should be no spectrum charges, nor license fees. We are, after all, providing a public service. > > >I think the TRAI is amenable to the newspaper model. Many of the > participants at the meeting seemed to support the basic stand. > > What exactly is a newspaper model? And how would it work in the context > of radio, especially since commercial FM has been prescribed a > radically different broadcast model? I believe you can register your newspaper at any post office. Why can't we keep it that simple? Just because they have messed up licensing for commercial radio doesn't give them the automatic obligation to mess up community radio licensing as well. > > >If a justification is needed for why we want preferential treatment as > compared to commercial radio, it is this: we serve a socially useful > purpose. We disseminate the kind of information government often wants > and needs disseminated. More importantly, we allow the voices of the poor > people to reach back. > > Forgive me for saying this, but the Government's perception of the > potential of CR (and the voices of the poor) is somewhat different. Most of > us would remember this quote from a former Secretary, I&B: "As of today > we don't think that villagers are equipped to run radio stations. > People are unprepared, and it could become a platform to air provocative, > political content that doesn't serve any purpose except to divide people. > It is fraught with danger." Mr. former secretary should be acqainted with Article 19 of the Constitution (if not sacked). And asked why such subversives are allowed to start newspapers. Why do we have to pay any attention to such crap? I don't believe the TRAI thinks this way, and right now, we are talking to TRAI. > >So, could we please discuss definition? Under what circumstances would > one say, this is community radio, or this isn't? > > How do we define CR in terms of carriage, other than by putting numbers > to various technical and commercial parameters? TRAI is the regulator > for carriage, not content. TRAI regulates carriage, yes, but that is not the issue here. But to give preferential treatment to community radio, TRAI needs to know what a community radio station is. The difference between commercial and community radio is fundamentally in the content. TRAI just wants a working definition to throw applications into two piles. Please take a look at the definition I sent in my earlier post, does it work for you? Arun From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 10:40:35 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 08:40:35 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] advisor for phase-II of FM licensing Message-ID: <20041021084035.14859.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/6b656fce/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Govt plans to appoint advisor for phase II of FM privatisation exchange4media, October 21 The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is planning to appoint an investment banker or a financial advisor to oversee the second phase of FM radio privatisation. The Ministry has decided to ask Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (Becil), the public sector company, to scout for the advisor. Sources said, "The Ministry feels that outside financial consultants would be in a position to evaluate the bids better and enable the Ministry to generate higher revenue. Since these consultants are involved in various financial arrangements of corporates, they are well versed with the tendering process. The idea is to bring in more professionalism." The Government is, however, keen on maintaining the bidding amount at realistic levels as it wants even smaller players to participate in the process. The Government is hopeful of embarking on the second phase of FM privatisation next year, wherein more frequencies could be allotted in the metros and several more cities and towns would be added to the list. Also, the Information Ministry is likely to ask Becil to work on the technical evaluation of the bids. The Government-owned consultancy firm had earlier offered advice on the issue of co-location of towers by the FM radio operators in the metro. Meanwhile, the Government has to firm up its views on the revised norms for the sector. It has more-or-less ruled out the option of switching over from the present licence fee regime to a revenue share arrangement. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, in its recommendations for the second phase of FM radio privatisation, had suggested a flat entry fee and a 4 per cent revenue share. But the huge revenue loss has deterred the Government from going ahead. Source: Business Line From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 13:29:20 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 11:29:20 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] no consensus at TRAI Open House Message-ID: <20041021112920.13655.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/d53e19ed/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- No consensus on community radio norms at Trai open house FINANCIAL EXPRESS Posted online: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 0000 hours IST NEW DELHI: The open house session on community radio on Monday failed to arrive at a consensus on whether there should be separate sets of rules for commercial and non-commercial segments, or if advertisements should be allowed in non-commercial operations. Community radio hopefuls attending the open house, organised by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), could not even define the space for the segment. The only point where there was a consensus was content. Both private FM radio officials and potential community radio representatives agreed that news and current affairs must be permitted across networks. At present, news and current affairs programmes are allowed only on All India Radio (AIR). Even as an expert committee and later Trai recommended news and current affairs programmes for private FM radio, the government is yet to take a decision on the issue. The open house session here on Monday was a follow-up on the consultative paper on community radio, which was issued by Trai in August. According to Trai officials, the recommendations on community radio are likely to be ready sometime next month. Among the issues discussed at the session were definition of community radio, need for separate policies for commercial and non-commercial radio, managing spectrum, independent licensing body, simplification of licensing process, transmitter power and antenna height, funding, advertising, etc. One of the suggestions at the open session was that the concept of licensing should be removed. Also, that clearances to community radio station could be granted by a local body like the district collector, rather than moving from one ministry to another. The fact that AIR is sitting on a lot of frequencies also came up for deliberation. According to Trai chairman Pradip Baijal, the community radio space must be defined so that encroachment is prevented. The only private FM radio representative at the session was from Entertainment Network India Ltd (ENIL). An ENIL official pointed out that those who are paying hefty amounts as licence fee (read private FM) cannot be equated with non-commercial stations. So, there?s no case for community radio stations carrying ads, he said. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 13:47:09 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 11:47:09 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <20041021114709.16075.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/5431beec/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- I'm throwing up some possible figures for Community Radio. The Commercial FM figures I've given are those recommended by TRAI for the 2nd Phase of FM Licensing. The Campus Radio figures are from the existing guidelines on Campus/Community Radio. 1. Multiple licenses: a) Community Radio: One license per applicant? b) Commercial FM: 3 licenses per licensee in one center, or 33% of total licenses available, whichever is less. Can hold 25% of total licenses across country. c) Campus Radio: One license per applicant 2. Duration of license: a) Community Radio: 5 years + renewal for 5 years? b) Commercial FM: 10 + renewal for five. c) Campus Radio: 3 years 3. License Fee/One time entry fee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: One time entry fee with revenue share of 4% c) Campus Radio: Nil 4. Spectrum Usage Fee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: as fixed by WPC c) Campus Radio: as fixed by WPC* * Anna Univ pays approximately Rs.19,000 per year 5. Performance Bank Guarantee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: 50% of one time entry fee c) Campus Radio: Rs.50,000 6. Penalty for non-operationalising license: a) Community Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year b) Commercial Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year c) Campus Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year 7. Default: a) Community Radio: License to be cancelled if service is closed down for six months. b) Commercial Radio: License to be cancelled if service is closed down for six months. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 8. Frequency Allocation: a) Community Radio: 3 frequencies to be set aside for Campus/CR b) Commercial FM: Maximum number to be released in Metros. At least two frequencies to be offered even in smallest town. c) Campus Radio: See ?a? above. 9. Co-location of transmitter: a) Community Radio: Permissible, but not mandatory. b) Commercial FM: Prescribed for commercial FM to reduce carrier separation. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 10. Transmitter power: a) Community Radio: 1 KW (Maximum) b) Commercial FM: 50 KW (Max) ? 1 KW (Min) c) Campus Radio: 50 Watts (Max) 11. EHAAT (Effective Height of Antenna above Average Terrain): a) Community Radio: 50 metres (Max)? b) Commercial FM: 75-300 mts (in metros) & 40-150 (remaining cities) c) Campus Radio: 30 metres (Max) 12. Advertisements per programme hour: a) Community Radio: 5 minutes per hour. b) Commercial FM: No restrictions. c) Campus Radio: Not permitted. 13. Cap on revenue from advertisements: a) Community Radio: 50%. (50% cap on revenue from any single source?) b) Commercial FM: No restrictions on ad revenue. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 14. FDI a) Community Radio: Nil b) Commercial FM: Upto 26% c) Campus Radio: Not applicable 15. Time limit for clearances from Govt. Departments: a) Community Radio: 3 months, single window b) Commercial FM: Not prescribed c) Campus Radio: Not prescribed. Sajan. From sreedher at annauniv.edu Thu Oct 21 14:08:22 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:38:22 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From deveshkishore at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:00:05 2004 From: deveshkishore at hotmail.com (devesh kishore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:30:05 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/0434b957/attachment.htm From deveshkishore at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:05:52 2004 From: deveshkishore at hotmail.com (devesh kishore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:35:52 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/43d7c1f5/attachment.htm From puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 21 20:11:38 2004 From: puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in (ganesh puranik) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:11:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <20041021181138.89906.qmail@web8410.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Sreedhar Sir I am a student of Pune University. Our university is going to launch 'Vidya-vahini' campus radio station very soon. There are many students like me who are eagerly waiting for the campus radio station. We believe it will enrich and develop our skills to utilize a medium of mass communication for development. If we would have an opportunity to choose between campus TV and Radio, we will choose radio. One of the major reasons to this is radio's widest reach and utilization in our campus and in nearby areas within a radius of 10 km; where most of the students are residing. Before two years I did a survey of radio utilization by students in our university campus. I found that 78% hostel rooms were consist of at least one radio set and approximately 4 students using each radio sets regularly. On the other hand there were only 4 % students who were using public TV sets regularly. In our university campus of more than 400 acres there are 17 different hostels for boys and girls. So if we would have an opportunity to choose between the two types of Community Media then we will definitely prefer Radio because of its widest reach for our students community. I think we should not divide campus radio from the community radio. Both are same, becasue both have same basic purpose i.e. Development of a Community. I hope and pray that every Indian university will have a campus radio station very soon.........Amen ! Btw, After reading your mail I am inspired to do the same study again, which I did two years before, thanks ! Regards, Ganesh " Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai" wrote: dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/fcc8d2c8/attachment.htm From puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 21 20:14:25 2004 From: puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in (ganesh puranik) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:14:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [cr-india] (CR = Campus Radio) = Community Development In-Reply-To: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <20041021181425.45960.qmail@web8405.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Sreedhar Sir I am a student of Pune University. Our university is going to launch 'Vidya-vahini' campus radio station very soon. There are many students like me who are eagerly waiting for the campus radio station. We believe it will enrich and develop our skills to utilize a medium of mass communication for development. If we would have an opportunity to choose between campus TV and Radio, we will choose radio. One of the major reasons to this is radio's widest reach and utilization in our campus and in nearby areas within a radius of 10 km; where most of the students are residing. Before two years I did a survey of radio utilization by students in our university campus. I found that 78% hostel rooms were consist of at least one radio set and approximately 4 students using each radio sets regularly. On the other hand there were only 4 % students who were using public TV sets regularly. In our university campus of more than 400 acres there are 17 different hostels for boys and girls. So if we would have an opportunity to choose between the two types of Community Media then we will definitely prefer Radio because of its widest reach for our students community. I think we should not divide campus radio from the community radio. Both are same; because both have same basic purpose i.e. Development of a Community. I hope and pray that every Indian university will have a campus radio station very soon.........Amen! Btw, After reading your mail I am inspired to do the same study again, which I did two years before, thanks! Regards, Ganesh " Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai" wrote: dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/7f6c43bf/attachment.htm From arunlists at softhome.net Fri Oct 22 09:11:31 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:41:31 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> References: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. > 1.? ? ?License fee none > 2.? ? ?Spectrum Usage Fee none > 3.? ? ?Bank Guarantee none > 4.? ? ?Transmitter power 100W, for more, you have to apply specially. > 5.? ? ?Antenna height As allowed by local building laws > 6.? ? ?Permissible coverage area of CR station To be determined by the applicant > 7.? ? ?Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 10 minutes > 8.? ? ?Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station Not more than 25% of total revenue > 9.? ? ?Number of licenses per CR licensee One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum > 10.? ? ?Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > stations per location 3 > 11.? ? ?Period of license / period of extension same as commercial > 12.? ? ?Time limit for clearances 3 months > 13.? ? ?Period for preserving audio logs Indefinite -- use CDs. Archiving done at central facility. As far as definition is concerned, I'm happy with http://www.rabe.ch/kulturradio/kulturradio_eng.html, but do take a look at 3 below, which may become the subject of misinterpretation -- maybe we should expressly allow NGOs: ? ?Definition of a community radio ? ?(in accordance with www.amrac.org) ? ?Community radios ... ? ?1. ... promote the right to communication and facilitate the freedom of speech, encourage creative and diverse statements and contribute to a democratic process and a pluralistic society. ? ?2. ... provide education and production possibilities and are responsible for the transmission. They encourage local creative talents, cultivate local traditions and broadcast an entertaining, educational and development promoting programme for its listeners. ? ?3. ... secure the ownership of the radio in a way, that it is owned by local representatives of a visible community or an interest community. ? ?4. ... are editorially independent of governments, trade, religious institutions and political parties in the compilation of their radio programme. ? ?5. ... make sure that marginalised groups and minorities have access to the radio and secure as well as promote cultural and linguistic diversity. ? ?6. ... make sure that the listeners receive information on the base of multiple sources and points of view and allow space for opposing points of view from each person or organisation. ? ?7. ... are organisations, which work on a non-profit basis in order to maintain their independency and are financed by a multitude of donors. ? ?8. ... recognise and respect voluntary work and acknowledge the right of paid work for organisational matters and for the elaboration of working structures, which are beneficial for all people involved. ? ?9. ... elaborate management forms, programme structures and working conditions, which rule out any discrimination and are accessible to all people involved, employees and voluntary helpers alike. ? ?10. ... maintain communication with other community radios in order to promote and raise understanding on peace questions, tolerance, democracy and development. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Sat Oct 23 09:29:33 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 23 Oct 2004 07:29:33 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] radio's forgotten friends Message-ID: <20041023072933.23799.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041023/bf58b0e7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- RADIO'S FORGOTTEN FRIENDS... SOME THOUGHTS AT 50 by Shubhranshu Choudhary -------- NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: No one noticed but our transistor turned 50 today. Shall we say Happy Birth Day ? Taking the debate further which was started by Ershad and Fred... -------- New Delhi, 18 Oct 2004.Today I want to pay my tributes to that small instrument which made such a huge impact on my life when I was growing up in a small sleepy town in the middle of hills and jungles in Central tribal India. It was my friend, my teacher, my university,and my window to the rest of the world- my transistor- which completes its journey of 50 years today. It was the era before the arrival of TV, newspapers took 2 days to reach remote areas, and transistor was the source of information and entertainment. 18th October 1954 when TI-1 was first introduced, as transistor was called at that time; it costed more than $50, quite a huge sum for that period. It was a revolution for the younger generation in America. Whereas the Radio was part of the installed furniture,controlled by the parents at home , the transistor gave the freedom to choose your favourite programme. It was also when the Rock n Roll arrived. The two clicked together so well- the rebellion of the sixties was reflected in the popularity of these little machines. Transistor has been on roll since then. Very soon Japanese models took over the first American ones and that remains the rule so far. Prices today for a transistor have come down to less than $1 and has made itself affordable for the poor. Moving ahead from diode and triode, the technology of transistor was a big step forward. We see its usage even today in TV and computers which uses the transistor technology in various forms. Many have graduated from transitor to television to broadband & computers now. But for a huge majority transistor remains a trusted ally even after 50 years. Be it be a rikshaw puller in Delhi or a farmer in remote corner of India, the one thing they have in common apart from being poor is a transistor. If you leave last couple of decades ours has been a story of transistor radios. I remember visiting a market called BBC Bazar in Bangladesh. It came by that name in a very interesting way- It was the year 1971, the war of liberation was on and the only transistor in the locality was available in a hamlet in this remote area half a day from capital Dhaka. The whole population converged to listen to the evening news which turned a small hamlet into a full fledged market named after the most popular radio station at that time. India has 104 million transistor homes, more than double than the reach of TV. And radio transmissions are available to 98.5% of the population. According to Planning Commission statistics more than half of Indian houses do not have any electricity connection. With these kind of figures does one need to emphasise the importance of transistor for a country like India ? Ten years back, the Indian supreme court gave an interesting ruling. This judgement strongly critiqued the long-held government monopoly over broadcasting in this country. In early 1995, the court declared the airwaves as public property, to be utilized for promoting public good and ventilating plurality of views, opinions and ideas. (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1236). In view of this, the judges said it was essential that the Indian Parliament "steps in soon to fill the void by enacting a law or laws, as the case may be, governing the broadcast media, i.e. both radio and television". Parliament has stepped in to relax laws to liberate television but many wonder why Governement is so afraid to free Radio. Radio still remains a powerful tool for the rulers to spread "their" message. But it is still a one way traffic where people have no control on what they listen. Even our tiny neighbours like Nepal and Sri Lanka have gone forward to legalise community radio stations where people talk to each other rather than being talked at all the time. It was not surprising that there were no celebrations planned for a technology which has given us so much and contains huge potential to democratise our polity. This probably tells about the time and place we live in. --------- This article was forwarded by Frederick Noronha. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 23 14:37:34 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:07:34 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> References: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> Message-ID: I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send >a response to TRAI.. > > 5. Antenna height >As allowed by local building laws SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station >To be determined by the applicant >> 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming >10 minutes Maximum. > > 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station >Not more than 25% of total revenue >> 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee >One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major wireless using countries. > > 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > > stations per location >3 Clarification: this should be the reserved frequencies; if there are more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, subject to availability of spectrum. As far as the TRAI advisor's (who commented about an 'international norm' of 800 KHz separation between stations as justification of the extraordinary low number of allocations for Mumbai and Delhi - 11 each), here is a comment from Ken Donow of the IBB (the second paragraph gives the credentials of the IBB, which were also doubted by the Advisor, when called specifically by the TRAI member for clarification. His explanation was "Well, some of those stations operate only in the underground, so that the subways can get radio reception"): At 12:20 PM -0400 10/3/02, Kenneth Donow wrote: >Bamako, Mali -- a large city in the context of Mali, but one of only >moderate size if placed against Indian counterparts -- supports 35 radio >stations, most of which are FM. New York City -- the largest media >market in the US, but smaller than New Delhi and Mumbai -- supports 72 >radio stations..... > >The International Broadcasting Bureau is the management organization >that operates most of US International Broadcasting. That would include >the Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Sawa -- Vickram From sreedher at annauniv.edu Sun Oct 24 14:08:15 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:38:15 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> The culprit today is the Department of Telecommunications and WPC. They are the one who are not releasing the frequency or delay SACFA indefinitely to the users. May be the commercial operators are working behind. sreedher > I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a > couple of minor additions )interleaved below): > > At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: > >My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send > >a response to TRAI.. > > > 5. Antenna height > >As allowed by local building laws > > SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden > areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the > combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without > causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not > be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in > the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified > upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to > monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > > > > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station > >To be determined by the applicant > >> 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming > >10 minutes > > Maximum. > > > > 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station > >Not more than 25% of total revenue > >> 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee > >One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum > > Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the > technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major > wireless using countries. > > > > 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > > > stations per location > >3 > > Clarification: this should be the reserved frequencies; if there are > more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, > subject to availability of spectrum. > > As far as the TRAI advisor's (who commented about an 'international > norm' of 800 KHz separation between stations as justification of the > extraordinary low number of allocations for Mumbai and Delhi - 11 > each), here is a comment from Ken Donow of the IBB (the second > paragraph gives the credentials of the IBB, which were also doubted > by the Advisor, when called specifically by the TRAI member for > clarification. His explanation was "Well, some of those stations > operate only in the underground, so that the subways can get radio > reception"): > > At 12:20 PM -0400 10/3/02, Kenneth Donow wrote: > >Bamako, Mali -- a large city in the context of Mali, but one of only > >moderate size if placed against Indian counterparts -- supports 35 radio > >stations, most of which are FM. New York City -- the largest media > >market in the US, but smaller than New Delhi and Mumbai -- supports 72 > >radio stations..... > > > >The International Broadcasting Bureau is the management organization > >that operates most of US International Broadcasting. That would include > >the Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Sawa > > > -- > Vickram > _______________________________________________ > cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From arunlists at softhome.net Sun Oct 24 16:17:17 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:17 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> References: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <41A4985B.3010705@softhome.net> Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai wrote: >The culprit today is the Department of Telecommunications and WPC. They >are the one who are not releasing the frequency or delay SACFA >indefinitely to the users. May be the commercial operators are working >behind. sreedher > > Your frank comments are highly appreciated, Dr. Sreedhar. May we also have the benefit of your esperience, in the form of suggestions on what we should write to TRAI with regard to the definition of community radio, spectrum fees, etc. Arun From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 25 15:09:15 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 25 Oct 2004 13:09:15 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] media policy on hold Message-ID: <20041025130915.5020.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041025/844592c8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Norms for cable TV, news channels, FM radio, DTH and print media on hold October 25, 04, exchange4media The list of pending issues in the media sector is growing. Whether it is cable television, direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting, radio or print media, policy decisions are awaited all across these segments. While decisions got delayed in the first part of the year because of the change in government, subsequent bureaucratic changes in the information and broadcasting ministry kept things in a limbo. A new set of bureaucrats is in the process of taking charge in the ministry. In the area of cable television, the government is examining the proposals submitted by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on implementation of conditional access system (CAS). Trai had given three options of rolling out CAS. But, the government is taking time on CAS, because it had burnt its fingers on the issue last year, said a source in the I&B ministry. Again in television, a verdict is hanging on investment by foreign institutional investors (FIIs) in news TV channels. Currently, FIIs are not allowed to invest in news channels, but there are indications that the norms may be liberalised. Some news channels, which have FII funds, have been permitted to uplink from India till a new law comes into force. The radio sector too is awaiting a policy for the second phase of private FM. Again, Trai has made its recommendations, but the government is yet to take a decision on the new norms for FM-II. In the first phase of FM privatisation, it was a licence fee regime, which was resisted by the players. Even as Trai suggested a shift from the licence fee regime to a revenue-sharing era, indications are that a middle path may be adopted. In the case of community radio, Trai is still consulting with industry players. Recommendations are expected sometime in November, Trai officials said. Satellite radio is another area that the regulator is looking at. In direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting, the Tata-Star application has been pending with the government for several months now. Also, on the DTH policy side, there may be changes. Recently Trai gave its recommendations on mandatory sharing of channels on the DTH platform, but the government is yet to take a call on the issue. If the regulator?s suggestion is accepted, all broadcasters will have to share their channels across cable and DTH platforms. So far, broadcasters such as Star and Sony have refused to provide their channels to the Zee group?s DTH platform?Dish TV. Print media is no different. Changes are expected here too. The Cabinet, last month, decided to form a group of ministers (GoM) to take a comprehensive look into the print media sector. The GoM is yet to be formed. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 25 15:35:10 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 25 Oct 2004 13:35:10 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041025/506485fd/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. >> > 5. Antenna height >>As allowed by local building laws SACFA has given fairly extensive guidelines on siting procedure for wireless stations on their website (www.dotindia.com/wpcc/spectrum-home.htm). Apparently, local building laws apply (and mast height clearance is exempted from SACFA clearance) only if the mast and antenna are installed on a rooftop and their height is less than 3 metres (see below). Stand alone transmitter towers are covered by other norms. And any radio station with a 100+ watt transmitter comes under the 'Full Siting Category', which sounds quite dire. Sajan. SACFA CLEARANCES ---------------- SACFA clearances are issued after getting 'no objection' from various SACFA members who have to carry out detailed technical evaluation including field surveys, etc. at times they have to obtain evaluations from their field units. The technical evaluation is done primarily for- a) Aviation hazards. b) Obstruction to line of site of existing/planned networks c) Interference (Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI)/Electro Magnetic Compatibility (EMC)) to existing and proposed networks. CATEGORIES OF SITES FOR WIRELESS STATIONS: Mast Height Category: Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: Those fixed wireless stations whose mast/tower height do not exceed 30 meters above ground level and are operating in certain frequency bands with limited output power as given below are covered under this category: (a) All HF stations with power output of 125 watts or less. (b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output of 50 watts or less except broadcast stations. (ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with output power up to 25 watts except broadcast stations. (c) Broadcasting stations in the band 30 - 230 MHz with an output power output up to 100 watts. (d) All VHF/ UHF stations below 608 MHz with a power output of 10 watts or less. # Exemption from Mast Height Clearance: Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: Those mast height cases which satisfy the following conditions are exempted from mast height clearance:- (i) Antenna mast should be installed on the rooftop of the building. (ii) The height of mast including antenna to be installed on the rooftop should not be more than 3 meters. The site should be at least 3 KM away from the nearest airport. # Full Siting Category: The following fixed stations are covered under the full siting category: (a) All HF stations with power output more than 125 watts. (b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output more 50 watts. (ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with power output more than 25 watts. (c) Broadcasting stations in the frequency band 30-230 MHz with power output more than 100 watts. (d) All UHF stations with power output more than 10 watts ----------------------- On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. >> > 5. Antenna height >>As allowed by local building laws >SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > >> > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station >>To be determined by the applicant From vvcrishna at softhome.net Tue Oct 26 06:57:49 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:27:49 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> References: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Sajan. Now let's look at their brief, and the reality. This is a pretty long mail, the first part being a discussion of the SACFA guidelines, the middle part specific suggestions for inclusion in a recommendation paper for TRAI, and the last being a recompiled list of recommendations incorporating all these. I have put several line spaces to separate these three parts, to make it easier to scroll down. When commenting please only copy the relevant portion and not the whole mail. Both Arun and I, among others, have advocated over the years that it should not be the role of the government to adjudicate between different technologies, but only with their application. Unfortunately the trend to omniscience continues, with TRAI mandated to rule on carriage instead of content, and in this case, specifically for FM, rather than public service. In fact, on this list and at the various Open Houses we all have more or less accepted that the broadcast code used by AIR is good enough to continue for all. However, the real threat to use of the Code is the technical obfuscation and cumbersome procedures adopted for no good purpose. Although we do not believe that this process is the most effective way to go about things, we do not refuse to participate, rather we hope that our inputs will add value to the extent possible, in generation of good policy. At 1:35 PM +0000 10/25/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >SACFA has given fairly extensive guidelines on siting procedure for >wireless stations on their website >(www.dotindia.com/wpcc/spectrum-home.htm). Apparently, local >building laws apply (and mast height clearance is exempted from >SACFA clearance) only if the mast and antenna are installed on a >rooftop and their height is less than 3 metres (see below). Exactly. They already have some kind of guideline that was clearly intended to ease their work, but which seems to have been, in the typical bureaucratic way, been expanded to include everything but the kitchen sink - and even that, if it is over 3 meters high. Easier work ends up taking two years and more to clear a simple matter like an application to broadcast low power FM. There must be a better way. >Stand alone transmitter towers are covered by other norms. And any >radio station with a 100+ watt transmitter comes under the 'Full >Siting Category', which sounds quite dire. >..... >The technical evaluation is done primarily for- > >a) Aviation hazards. >b) Obstruction to line of site of existing/planned networks >c) Interference (Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI)/Electro >Magnetic Compatibility (EMC)) to existing and proposed networks. a) Aviation hazards are covered, please note, in a manner that is surely inadequate by today's aviation norms. I would like to know what kind of commercial jets normally flies off short runways? 3 km is the runway length alone, for most large bodied commercial jet aircraft, the type used in India, and for practically all land-based fighter aircraft. Surely they have the right to expect interference-free communications for more than that length after take-off? My point being that there is a case to believe that the departments are not concerned with effective governance, but only in status quo and maintenance of power. If the techies within SACFA (would this be the civil aviation ministry experts?) know how to avoid interference for low flying aircraft, and conversely, how to use low power radio signals to mess up communications for low flying aircraft, especially in landing and take-off, this ought to be public knowledge, to avoid mishap in the future. Only terrorists and governments hoard information. b) Existing/planned networks! And who on earth do they think is doing the planning? This sounds like a perfect Catch-22. The same reaction hit me when I looked at the next point, which refers to proposed networks, without any hint of when such networks are expected to be implemented. Still, this is in a sense nitpicking, and if one could be lucky enough to find non-venal or dedicated officers filling the steering seats in SACFA, the guidelines should not, theoretically, pose a hindrance to speedy clearance of new applications. Since this is not a given, with the current level of dedication obvious among government officers (evidenced by the extraordinary rapidity with which last year's applications have been disposed), there is no harm in asking TRAI to make things a bit clearer, either by sticking to my original suggestion, or by appointing a special low-power wireless frequency clearance committee that overrides SACFA's brief for the specified FM band. I have discussed these two scenarios once again below, plus added a suggestion for conflict resolution on EMI/EMC interference. ># Exemption from Mast Height Clearance: >Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: >Those mast height cases which satisfy the following conditions are >exempted from mast height clearance:- >(i) Antenna mast should be installed on the rooftop of the building. >(ii) The height of mast including antenna to be installed on the >rooftop should not be more than 3 meters. >The site should be at least 3 KM away from the nearest airport. If you have seen photos of cities like Toronto and Stuttgart, one very prominent feature of the skyline is the TV tower, a commercial building with a large mast on top. This allows the offices, studios and antennae of the enterprise to be conveniently situated in one building. Unfortunately, we don't have this luxury in any of our cities, and negotiating a deal with an existing building owner could be as inconvenient or just plain bad business sense (example: imagine a special arrangement with a frequency clearance officer for say, one year's operations only, next year come back and deal again). ># Full Siting Category: > >The following fixed stations are covered under the full siting category: > >(a) All HF stations with power output more than 125 watts. > >(b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output >more 50 watts. Amazing. Can anyone imagine why SACFA was given this life-and-death control in the first place? 50 watts! But look at (c) below, and it is clear that section b) is *not intended* to cover FM broadcasting stations. Whether or not the 50 watt categorisation is justified, it does not affect those interested in low power FM broadcasting. It does however, impact on the liberalisation of AM (medium wave) broadcasting. >(ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with >power output more than 25 watts. >(c) Broadcasting stations in the frequency band 30-230 MHz with >power output more than 100 watts. So it is only FM broadcasting stations with power above 100 watts that get covered by the "full siting category" nutcracker. I do not understand why low power AM is getting stepmotherly treatment. While the medium does not guarantee noise-free audio to the receiver, it can work better for hilly areas, which is many important parts of the country. I am puzzled by the lack of interest in speedy disposal of applications for medium wave broadcasting as well as FM. I think discussions on this list have not paid sufficient attention to establishing community-focused public service radio in areas where FM is not the most suitable choice. >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >>I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a >>couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >>At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly >>>send a response to TRAI.. >>> > 5. Antenna height >>>As allowed by local building laws > > >SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden >areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the >combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without >causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need >not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast >in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be >de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an >independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. I hadn't spotted the detailed SACFA guidelines before putting out this suggestion, and now feel that it wasn't specific enough to deal with the threat of stiflement, with which we are already familiar. I therefore suggest that TRAI adopt a clear policy for both low power medium wave and FM broadcasting, opening up - liberalising licensing - of which will create an environment for the production of better content than we currently experience, given the expensive luxury of stations that constitute the commercial FM bands. This policy may encompass Arun's suggestions just as posted to this list, but with the following modifications (numbering as per Arun's original - I have, right at the very end, compiled a complete list for ease of reference): 5. Antenna height: Use of antennae for medium wave or FM transmitters under 100 watts will be allowed at heights up to 3 meters from the topmost point of existing buildings and natural prominences, subject to the site being at least 3 km from the runway direction within 45 degrees to either side, for both ends of the runway. The construction of the mast should be in conformance with local building laws, wherever applicable. Explanation: Aircraft communications that can be affected by terrestrial broadcasting are only relevant in line with the runway. An aircraft that is approaching a runway over 45 degrees from its direction is obviously not intending to land, and is also unlikely to be low enough that interference with communications could even happen in the first place. Note: I don't know who must have dreamed up the 3 meter restriction, but at least one thing is reasonably clear: such a short mast is not likely to be a hazard to persons in the vicinity, and even a very poorly trained mason or ironworker ought to be able to erect such a tower competently and inexpensively. In rural areas, expect incompetency: the lack of training and skills is closely linked to the lack of education and opportunity. This is in fact why the need for effective communication is urgently felt. Although optimal reach is as important in rural areas as in urban, and in fact even more so, given the relative paucity of financial resources for development, a rule that limits access to simplified antenna placement to buildings only is discriminatory: tall trees, rocks and hills must also be allowed. Usage restrictions of all kinds need to be eased or lifted entirely. Antenna masts should not be defined as 'constructions', or else forest dwellers will be denied use of their own natural resources. 6. Permissible reach/coverage: As determined by the applicant, taking care not to interfere with broadcasting/communications from existing wireless networks. In case a new wireless network is already under implementation, care should be taken by the newer station to avoid interference with the older applicant. Such a condition will only apply for eighteen months after start of construction. Explanation: Low power broadcasting has been determined to be irrelevant to high power broadcast signalling quality at the recipient side. The reference is the Mitre study, carried out independently but taken on board by the US FCC, in determining conditions for future licensing of low power wireless broadcasting in the USA. This means that if the new station under implementation is a high power station, then the fresh applicant will have to take care not to interfere when the station is ready. However, it is not a blanket veto handed over to potentially dog-in-the-manger station owners, it will be time limited to eighteen months from the start of construction of the station. If they delay construction or are otherwise delayed in beginning operations, they should not forever enjoy early bird benefits. 14. Conflicts: The District Collector should carry the role of ombudsman in local interference conflicts, in case any such arise. If the conflict cannot be resolved through technical adjustment of existing installations, the Collector may be empowered to expedite the assistance of technical experts from the relevant ministry to recommend a solution. Explanation: With SACFA and WPC out of the picture, it is important to replace them with a more effective local governmental mechanism. Complete list of recommendations: 1. License fee none 2. Spectrum Usage Fee none 3. Bank Guarantee none 4. Transmitter power 100W, for more, you have to apply specially. 5. Antenna height Use of antennae for medium wave or FM transmitters under 100 watts will be allowed at heights up to 3 meters from the topmost point of existing buildings and natural prominences, subject to the site being at least 3 km from the runway direction within 45 degrees to either side, for both ends of the runway. The construction of the mast should be in conformance with local building laws, wherever applicable. 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station To be determined by the applicant, taking care not to interfere with broadcasting/communications from existing wireless networks. In case a new wireless network is already under implementation, care should be taken by the newer station to avoid interference with the older applicant. Such a condition will only apply for eighteen months after start of construction. 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming Ten minutes maximum 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station Not more than 25% of total revenue 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum. Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major wireless user countries. 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR /Maximum number of CR stations per location Three reserved frequencies; if there are more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, subject to availability of spectrum. The District Collector will be the Competent Authority for allocation of reserved frequencies. 11. Period of license / period of extension Same as commercial 12. Time limit for clearances 3 months 13. Period for preserving audio logs Indefinite. Archiving done at central facility created for this purpose. Use CDs, and specify compliance with a suitably open format (it is inefficient to define the actual format to be used by each station, as long as data is exchange-compliant). 14. Conflicts The District Collector should carry the role of ombudsman in local EMI/EMC interference conflicts, in case any such arise. If the conflict cannot be resolved through technical adjustment of existing installations, the Collector may be empowered to expedite the assistance of technical experts from the relevant ministry to recommend a solution. -- Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Tue Oct 26 07:10:24 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:40:24 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Fwd: [creative-radio] Internews releases survey of radio signals in Afghanistan Message-ID: >----------------------- >Internews releases survey of radio signals in Afghanistan >-------------------------------------------- >Internews has released a second survey of radio signals in >Afghanistan in an effort to better understand the role of >independent radio in the country. > >The survey, available online at >http://www.internews.org/regions/afghanistan/nationalsurvey20040930.htm, >is based on more than 520 "data points" collected between >May and July 2004. A team of three technicians traveled >the country and measured signal strengths, recording their >locations using a Global Positioning System (GPS). > >Using findings from the first survey released in April 2004, >Internews is now able to project "radio plurality indexes," >which estimate the number of stations accessible by any individual >in a given region. The survey found that listeners in Kabul have >access to more than seven stations, but the rural majority of the >country can only access an average of 2.3 signals. Can we expect a similar study from TRAI, WPC, SACFA, I&B, or any other department that is supposed to be responsible? Is the Government of India officially complacent about the fact that the rural listener in our war shattered neighbor country now has better access to information than the peaceful Indian citizen, 56 years after wresting independence from colonial rulers? Where have the earnings from the sale of licenses for commercial broadcasting been spent? -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 09:50:37 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:50:37 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <20041022090537.22121.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01c4bb30$8117ee30$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, others: My worry is this. And I say this with the greatest of respect for the discourse that has gone on for a while, of which I have been a part of. All the talk about CR in the development sector and in public engagements over the past few years has perhaps caused the wrong emphasis in the policy making process itself. Instead of seriously considering rule-making for a general purpose commercial and non-commercial license regime FIRST, we find ourselves on a road -- Govt, TRAI, and us, together, oddly enough -- where we're perhaps uncessarily trying to figure how to 'legislate community radio'. I realize that the business of how to make a distinction between CR and commercial-radio, demarcation, encroachment is a serious one, but I want to take a step back. At the risk of boring people to death, ('stuck record' to use Arun's language), I invite people to look at one scenario that wll not be unfamiliar to some. I'm going to keep this short to just layout the rest quickly. Let's say our government (this a strawman hope for now) rolls out licensing policy for FM-radio which only has two broad categories of licenses: a) Commercial FM b) Non-commercial educational FM (NC) (or NCE as they call it in the US). Commercial-FM stations would be viable by advertising and program sponsorship. In return they are allowed to openly promote the good and services of the advertisers/sponsors, in their AD spots. Non-commercial FM stations would be viable by contributions from listeners, donations and grants from other non-commercial organizations, government-funding, and underwriting contributions from for-profit entities. In the last case, NC stations are not allowed to 'promote' the goods and services of the underwriter, but they may acknowledge the name of the underwriter on the air. (the principle). Beyond this, of course, a whole host of detailed rules and regulations may be worked out to close loopholes, address the nuances, etc. Underwriting money in the hands of NC stations for example may be exempted from taxes, but they may also become subject to revenue share if the Courts think so, etc. The Courts may also think otherwise and find the exemptions valid. But let's say whereever the chips fall, they fall and the law will take its course. These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the license. For e.g. NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. If the distinction is made this way, the CR will typically be an outcome/application of a non-commercial radio license, where the organization that got the license operates it a certain way. Likewise with public broadcasting. (A well funded NGO/foundation could setup and operate a public affairs broadcaster for an entire city for example. ERP for a PSB will likely be higher than ERP for a CR station, but not necessarily so). The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself 'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is observed. This then leads to different questions: Should the government then legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our suspicions/assertions about what might not. I realize that. Still, even for this kind of broad policy, the distinction/demarcation problem needs to be addressed; i.e. recommendations will need to go to TRAI for a) Which entities can get an NC license; can a pvt company get and operate an NC license for example, as long as it follows the NC rules? b) Whether certain fees for NC licenses must be zero or reduced, or whether certain fees must be made proportional to tranmission power or whatever, etc. This needs to be sifted through to come up with a generally sensible set of recommendations. But my point is this: At the NC+C level, we've already brought this down to a relatively simpler exercise. We don't have worry about how to shoehorn the 'CR' factor into policy distinctions. As a result, CR, its definitions, representative criteria, validating all that, etc, need not take prominence here. However, there is still room for the government to layout a special sub-policy under the NC-licensing scheme for CR. Some might prefer that. But I would argue as follows. Historically, we've seen that when govts (in India in particular) get into vertical policy making (ie regulating all tiers of a service), there is the risk of restricting more and enabling less. Like it or not, we've developed a culture of government that simply drives creative people out of the system. It may just be better to just let an well nailed baseline NC policy roll out and see how many CR applications really happen first. My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so. But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. To develop such a sub-policy, the question what CR definitions would work for the government, how would the government look for representativeness etc, become more significant. -Subbu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041026/94511674/attachment.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:04:59 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:04:59 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, others: My worry is this. And I say this with the greatest of respect for the discourse that has gone on for a while, of which I have been a part of. All the talk about CR in the development sector and in public engagements over the past few years has perhaps caused the wrong emphasis in the policy making process itself. Instead of seriously considering rule-making for a general purpose commercial and non-commercial license regime FIRST, we find ourselves on a road -- Govt, TRAI, and us, together, oddly enough -- where we're perhaps uncessarily trying to figure how to 'legislate community radio'. I realize that the business of how to make a distinction between CR and commercial-radio, demarcation, encroachment is a serious one, but I want to take a step back. At the risk of boring people to death, ('stuck record' to use Arun's language), I invite people to look at one scenario that wll not be unfamiliar to some. I'm going to keep this short to just layout the rest quickly. Let's say our government (this a strawman hope for now) rolls out licensing policy for FM-radio which only has two broad categories of licenses: a) Commercial FM b) Non-commercial educational FM (NC) (or NCE as they call it in the US). Commercial-FM stations would be viable by advertising and program sponsorship. In return they are allowed to openly promote the good and services of the advertisers/sponsors, in their AD spots. Non-commercial FM stations would be viable by contributions from listeners, donations and grants from other non-commercial organizations, government-funding, and underwriting contributions from for-profit entities. In the last case, NC stations are not allowed to 'promote' the goods and services of the underwriter, but they may acknowledge the name of the underwriter on the air. (the principle). Beyond this, of course, a whole host of detailed rules and regulations may be worked out to close loopholes, address the nuances, etc. Underwriting money in the hands of NC stations for example may be exempted from taxes, but they may also become subject to revenue share if the Courts think so, etc. The Courts may also think otherwise and find the exemptions valid. But let's say whereever the chips fall, they fall and the law will take its course. These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the license. For e.g. NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. If the distinction is made this way, the CR will typically be an outcome/application of a non-commercial radio license, where the organization that got the license operates it a certain way. Likewise with public broadcasting. (A well funded NGO/foundation could setup and operate a public affairs broadcaster for an entire city for example. ERP for a PSB will likely be higher than ERP for a CR station, but not necessarily so). The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself 'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is observed. This then leads to different questions: Should the government then legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our suspicions/assertions about what might not. I realize that. Still, even for this kind of broad policy, the distinction/demarcation problem needs to be addressed; i.e. recommendations will need to go to TRAI for a) Which entities can get an NC license; can a pvt company get and operate an NC license for example, as long as it follows the NC rules? b) Whether certain fees for NC licenses must be zero or reduced, or whether certain fees must be made proportional to tranmission power or whatever, etc. This needs to be sifted through to come up with a generally sensible set of recommendations. But my point is this: At the NC+C level, we've already brought this down to a relatively simpler exercise. We don't have worry about how to shoehorn the 'CR' factor into policy distinctions. As a result, CR, its definitions, representative criteria, validating all that, etc, need not take prominence here. However, there is still room for the government to layout a special sub-policy under the NC-licensing scheme for CR. Some might prefer that. But I would argue as follows. Historically, we've seen that when govts (in India in particular) get into vertical policy making (ie regulating all tiers of a service), there is the risk of restricting more and enabling less. Like it or not, we've developed a culture of government that simply drives creative people out of the system. It may just be better to just let an well nailed baseline NC policy roll out and see how many CR applications really happen first. My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so. But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. To develop such a sub-policy, the question what CR definitions would work for the government, how would the government look for representativeness etc, become more significant. -Subbu From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 27 14:14:38 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 27 Oct 2004 12:14:38 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041027/dc59028b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >Let's say our government ...rolls out >licensing policy for FM-radio >which only has two broad categories of >licenses: a) Commercial FM b) >Non-commercial educational FM (NC) You have a very valid point there. I think we are tying ourselves in semantic knots trying to define radio in terms of Commercial, Community, Campus, Niche, so on and so forth. (The Amit Mitra committee came up with 'non-commercial and niche channels', more of which anon). Placing radio in two broad categories - commercial and non-commercial - would simplify things considerably and would be more meaningful. Any 'sub-category' can be defined in terms of content, but we would have to define these two broad categories in terms of carriage also. >These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the >license. For e.g. >NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; >campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. >Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & >some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. This is where we move into the realm of content, and into Ministry of I&B territory. >The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee >airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC >can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. >Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. I think TRAI could live with this formulation, but the I&B Ministry - and most certainly the commercial operators - would have much to say about letting non-commercial operators decide their own programme content. From what I know about govt. policy making, we may have to settle for some mystic proportion like "70% developmental programmes and not more than 30% entertainment programmes". Would be very difficult to enforce, of course, but that's the way it is. >The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself >'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that >decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is >observed. Precisely. And just for the record, there isn't a great deal the govt. can do if a station calls itself 'CR' and is not really one. None of the private FM channels are supposed to broadcast news. All of them do, under various guises, and the govt. hasn't done much about that either. And the listening community may well be happy to listen to film songs. >This then leads to different questions: Should the government then >legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? >The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, >our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our >suspicions/assertions about what might not. Legislating for each kind of radio separately doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? For instance, Arun Mehta introduced the concept of a private 'public service broadcaster', which makes perfect sense actually. And what about all those 'niche' channels and 'non-commercial channels' broadcasting cultural programmes that were proposed by the Mitra committee? A broader licensing system would embrace all these and more, instead of leading us into a policy quagmire. Incidentally, on the issue of 'niche and non-commercial channels', TRAI recommended that "this issue can be delinked from the current process which is aimed at promoting the growth of private FM radio and more specifically the licensing conditions for Phase II." >But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or >incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and >recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate >policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. Well, Amit Mitra did suggest a Universal Service Obligation levy to be paid up by commercial operators, like the one levied in the Telecom sector. We suggested that a part of it should be diverted to CR. The Govt. believes that rural telecom needs a push (see today's TRAI Consultation Paper on rural telecom), and the Planning Commission certainly believes that rural radio deserves a push, but would CR be singled out for Govt. largesse? Wouldn't other non-commercial channels be equally deserving? Sajan. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Wed Oct 27 19:37:33 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:07:33 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> References: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 12:14 PM +0000 10/27/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >Well, Amit Mitra did suggest a Universal Service Obligation levy to >be paid up by commercial operators, like the one levied in the >Telecom sector. We suggested that a part of it should be diverted to >CR. The government has shown itself as completely unfit to managing the routing of funds to a particular cause, such as development of radio as an effective communications medium. Please let us not support it creating and managing a fund for the purpose, and gouging the commercial operators, so that they end up dumbing down content in programmes that are paying for the improvement of content! Right now they are doing that and not even generating development money! Can you imagine how much worse it can get if they are forced to fork out even more money? -- Vickram From arunlists at softhome.net Thu Oct 28 07:13:26 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:43:26 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <41807FF6.6080604@softhome.net> Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >I want >to take a step back. > > > You sure? The choice isn't between a sensible non-commercial radio policy and a flawed community radio one. The choice is between the TRAI putting out halfway-decent recommendations on community radio, or poor ones. Does anyone here have the time and energy, to first get the TRAI to step back from this process, and then get the government to again start moving forward, after we cried halt the previous time? Firstly, why is community radio on the table, and not non-commecial? Because for long, many of us have been asking for this. Maybe this discussion should have taken place, and a consensus built on what we actually want, some years ago. I just don't think, strategically, that this is a good time to bring up the issue again, and let this opportunity pass. TRAI is following a certain logic. Having accepted our urging that community radio needs to be looked at, it now wants to know how a distinction should be made from commercial radio, and what concessions in the policy should be made for this new kind of radio. If we support the process, there is a good chance that we will at least be able to live with the TRAI recommendations. A little more lobbying, and maybe we'll even get a community radio policy that makes it possible to set up a few such stations. The choice, really, is between some stations and none. It has been over a decade now, that the so-called community radio movement in India has been just talking about it. Why not let a few stations come up, so that we get some experience, instead of mere theoretical knowledge. Now, what kind of stations are these going to be? Please take a look at the AMARC definition, that we seemed to have a consensus around. Would we be happy to sea such stations coming up? Who qualifies to set up such stations? We should keep that as broad as possible, and it seems that TRAI sees the logic of not treating radio and newspapers differently. Just about anyone can start a newspaper, for me, I see no reason why for radio the eligibility should be less broad. Who decides that an organisation is actually running a community radio station, or merely pretending to? We can ask that it be an independent body, that functions transparently, with a substantial representation from the NGO community and civil society. Arun From disabilityradio at hotmail.com Thu Oct 28 09:50:33 2004 From: disabilityradio at hotmail.com (jean parkar) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:20:33 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Anna University Message-ID: I will be visiting in Chennai on this Tuesday and would like to visit the new radio station at Anna University. Who is the appropriate person to contact to arrange a visit? Or, if that person is on this list they can contact me directly off list. Thanks, Jean Parker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041028/6c473c5c/attachment.htm From sreedher at annauniv.edu Thu Oct 28 10:23:45 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:53:45 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Anna University Message-ID: <200410280823.i9S8NjJW012819@ns.annauniv.edu> Kindly contact me as soon as you arrive in chennai. my cell no is 0444207459. regards sreedher > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > I will be visiting in Chennai on this Tuesday and would like to visit the new radio station at Anna University. Who is the appropriate person to contact to arrange a visit? Or, if that person is on this list they can contact me directly off list. > > Thanks, > > Jean Parker > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From media at web.net Fri Oct 29 02:37:55 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:37:55 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] =?iso-8859-1?q?INDIA=92S_TELECOM_REGULATOR_SET_TO_REGU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?LATE_SATELLITE_BROADCASTING?= Message-ID: INDIA?S TELECOM REGULATOR SET TO REGULATE SATELLITE BROADCASTING ---------------------------------------------------------------- (27 oct 2004) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is going to appoint a consulting firm to propose a set of guidelines for satellite broadcasting in India. Satellite broadcasting services in India provide their services without any government intervention in absence of any licensing procedure. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96789/1138/7271 From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 09:58:40 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:58:40 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <41807FF6.6080604@softhome.net> Message-ID: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Here's what I said: "My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so." > You sure? The choice isn't between a sensible non-commercial > radio policy and a flawed community radio one. I didn't say this was the choice on the cards, i.e., right now. Perhaps you read that into my note :-). I laid out a scenario and an argument partly because I didn't get the sense that the distinction was ever made between CR as a demand for outcome, and NC as a generalized policy mechanism to let those outcomes come. If it was, it surely seems to have missed the advocacy line. Having said that, it's true enough that the die has been cast and the policy questions have already been framed. We already know TRAI is going to send back recommendations for CR to the Ministry, not for NC. But those who want to send ADDITIONAL feedback to TRAI in response to the officials recent request ought to be able to weigh in on the concerns over distinction in a broader sense, rather than {CR, CR, CR}. I don't have a sense for what TRAI's reaction might be --- those who attended the meetings may be better placed for this -- but the broader perspective may be able to help TRAI centre their thinking on the fact that they themselves already laid out the primary distinction (for airwave regulatory purposes) between community radio and commercial -- that CR is non-commercial. After all throughout the CR paper, the regulator has used the term 'non-commercial', and in the right way. They already get it, but it seems to have gotten lost in the discourse. Some external feedback to them in this particular light might get them to loosen up a little and still send a CR policy recommendation to I&B. The characterisations and criteria regarding self management, representation, 'communityness', etc apply when TRAI wants to develop the OTHER (and necessary) parts of its CR policy. And they also separate CR from other forms of non-commercial radio, especially the independent public service broadcasting form. But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR may serve as primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I just don't believe isn't necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. I realize some folks are going to disagree with this. No harm done. > Who qualifies to set up such stations? We should keep that as > broad as possible, and it seems that TRAI sees the logic of > not treating radio and newspapers differently. Just about > anyone can start a newspaper, for me, I see no reason why for > radio the eligibility should be less broad. Here's how I see it: Newspapers are primarily printing news. They are regulated by the registrar of newspapers for their specialist peculiarities. Newspaper distribution is already a private service. For broadcasting, the question of who can access the airwaves (public property) is a separate and may be regulated differently (institutionally) from what the broadcaster can put on the airwaves. I see some calling this 'carriage vs content'. If TRAI is looking for a comparison in the print media to CR, it ought to be community newsletters. These are more inward looking than commercial print media, and are often privately circulated in the thousands. Some are registered, but many are niche publications and sustain communities of some sort around their circulations. NGOs do this all the time. -Subbu From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 02:19:18 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:19:18 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <00b701c4be16$1dedd3e0$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Clarification, this: > But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR > may serve as > primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I > just don't > believe isn't necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. Should read thus: But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR may serve as primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I just don't believe THIS is necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. -Subbu From arunlists at softhome.net Sat Oct 30 03:25:29 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:55:29 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <4182ED89.3080407@softhome.net> Subramaniam Vincent wrote >But those who want to send ADDITIONAL feedback to TRAI in response to >the officials recent request ought to be able to weigh in on the >concerns over distinction in a broader sense, rather than {CR, CR, CR}. > > You make good points, and certainly you are able to weigh in with the TRAI on the concerns. But mailing to CR is no replacement for the real thing. When TRAI had an open house in Mumbai on community radio licensing, there was nobody from the CR activists who attended. In Vickram Crishna's defense, he attended the one in Delhi (which too was very sparsely attended) -- where was everybody else? Is our interest in community radio, or non-commercial, merely to the extent of talking about it among ourselves? Arun From dx_india at rediffmail.com Sun Oct 31 07:18:47 2004 From: dx_india at rediffmail.com (Jose Jacob,India) Date: 31 Oct 2004 06:18:47 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] CAMPUS RADIO IN ERODE : ON AIR TESTS! Message-ID: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041031/65dc8b4d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- ? MESSAGE FROM MR.K.RAJA,DX_INDIA IN TAMILNADU ERODE DISTRICT KONGU ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE HAS STARTED ITS TEST BROADCAST ON 08.10.2004 AT 90.40 MHZ. IT IS A SELF FINANCE COLLEGE. TEST BROADCAST GOING ON IN 90.40 MHZ FROM EVENING 4PM TO 9PM (IST) (10.30 -15.30 UTC).50 WATTS TRANSMITTER COVERS 15 K.M RADIUS. THE MAIN PROG IS EDUCATIONAL,INTERVIEW, GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, QUIZ, SPORTS. ALREADY IN CHENNAI 90.40 MHZ ANNA FM INDIA FIRST CAMPUS RADIO IS RUNNING. K.RAJA 21, J.P.KOIL STREET OLD WASHERMENPET CHEENAI-600021 k_raja123123 at yahoo.co.in ? 73 Jose Jacob, VU2JOS National Institute of Amateur Radio Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad 500082, India Telefax: 91-40-23310287 EchoLink:VU2NRO,India To join dx_india reflector which specialises exclusively on Broadcasting in India, send an email to dx_india-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sun Oct 31 13:02:06 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:32:06 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] CAMPUS RADIO IN ERODE : ON AIR TESTS! In-Reply-To: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> References: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Wow! ;-) I can see the banner headlines - Number of licensed community radio stations in India doubles in less than a year! At 6:18 AM +0000 10/31/04, Jose Jacob,India wrote: > > MESSAGE FROM MR.K.RAJA,DX_INDIA > >IN TAMILNADU ERODE DISTRICT KONGU ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE HAS STARTED -- Vickram From fred at bytesforall.org Sat Oct 2 16:11:08 2004 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:41:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [cr-india] Radio is emerging as the medium with highest reach... BusinessIndia Message-ID: See Business India, Sept 13-26, 2004 and its article titled 'Lend me thy ear'. It says: "Radio is emerging as the medium with the highest reach". Quote: "According to the survey, Radio Mirchi gets more listeners than the combined readership of both the Times of India and Hindustan Times (58 lakh listeners vs. 34 lakh ToI readers and 13.4 lakh of HT) and is significantly more than the total viewership of Star Plus, the channel with the highest viewership (54 lakh)...." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Noronha (FN) Nr Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India Freelance Journalist P: 832-2409490 M: 9822122436 http://fn.swiki.net http://www.livejournal.com/users/goalinks http://fn-floss.notlong.com http://www.ryze.com/go/fredericknoronha ====================================================================== From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 11:11:55 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 09:11:55 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] subbu vincent on private FM Message-ID: <20041006091155.4728.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/242b6812/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- The following piece by Subbu Vincent appeared in Deccan Herald (Oct 5, 2004 - In Perspective). The idea of banning News on private FM radio, while permitting it on private TV channels, seems quite bizarre. I wonder which powerful intellect thought that one up. Sajan. POLICY IMBALANCE SHOULD BE REVERSED Govt does not allow news on private radio stations, allowing a monopoly for AIR to continue BY SUBRAMANIAM VINCENT The vibrant voices airing music shows on 20 odd private FM radio stations in our major cities do not reflect viability worries and restrictions that otherwise haunt this industry. In 2003-04, a whopping 93% of private broadcasters' total revenues went towards government license fees alone. Little wonder that two years in a row, stations have incurred hefty losses. Alongside this crisis, a critical policy imbalance awaits reversal. Private radio stations are banned from airing news programmes, but television, print and internet operations are not. But with the Cable TV regulatory issues hogging much of the limelight recently, serious questions regarding the future of radio policy are getting sidelined. Over six weeks ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) sent its final recommendations on a new phase of licensing for FM radio to the Broadcasting Ministry. Two prescriptions stood out for their progressive elements, but the Ministry's responses since then are indicating that government thinking on radio continues to be myopic. VIABILITY CRISIS TRAI asked the government to drop the bidding-driven process for setting radio license fees because it was this system that set the stage for the viability crisis. The regulator prefers a system more prevalent elsewhere in India and worldwide -revenue sharing. Under this system, stations will pay the government 4% of their gross revenue every year. Second, the regulator advised the Ministry to review its ban on private stations airing news and current affairs, currently a monopoly with All India Radio. In fact, TRAI stopped just short of asking for an outright removal of the ban. In response, the Ministry rejected revenue sharing stating that it would suffer a decrease in fee collections of over Rs 100 crore. It further argued against revenue sharing saying that it could not be sure it was getting its fair share from the stations because it could not verify the revenues of every radio station. But realising that it had to address the viability mess, a week ago the Ministry reportedly offered to ensure low license fees during new bidding, contradicting its earlier concerns about revenue decreases from lower fees. Revenue-sharing is more progressive because government fee inflows remain proportional to how well stations are doing. With fixed licence fees and static annual increases, this is not the case. The Ministry's sore point that it cannot monitor station revenues is a weak argument. Broadcasters are already paying service taxes on their revenues and their half-yearly statements are available with the ST authorities. The Ministry offers no evidence to show that radio broadcasters are a special lot that need to be singled out for special scrutiny. To TRAI's recommendation to review the ban on news, the Ministry has said the ban will remain. And here too, the 'monitoring' argument made an appearance. The Ministry feels it will be unable to monitor news on local stations and that this constituted a grave security threat. But are there grounds to allege that radio news broadcasters will be particularly cavalier on sensitive matters when their television counterparts have not been found against? In fact, anticipating this misplaced concern, TRAI did point out, correctly, that existing laws may be used to curb violations of radio programme code. WORRISOME INTRANSIGENCE But beneath this professed inability to comb our airwaves lies a worrisome intransigence that has afflicted every recent Central government. For years, New Delhi has been leaden-footed on instituting an independent broadcast regulator, preferring to arrogate this power to itself instead. A regulator with the mandate to create a level playing field is well suited to run a listener-driven complaints system to enforce the law on the air. This has been shown to be doable elsewhere. Second, in persisting with the current ban, the Ministry is only supporting AIR's continuing monopoly over radio news. Legally, the Ministry's positions stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of 1995, where the Court asked New Delhi to open up the airwaves and appoint an autonomous broadcast regulator. The ruling warned that the right of private citizens to telecast is subject only to reasonable restrictions. There is little doubt that the Ministry's outright ban on private FM stations airing news is a monopolistic restriction and will be found so in the courts. Perhaps it is too much to expect the Broadcasting Ministry alone to shape a more open future for radio. The responsibility lies ultimately with the Cabinet since in any case it must sign off on new policy. For its part, the Cabinet needs to look at one plain contradiction. New Delhi cannot have it both ways - holding off on instituting an independent regulator and at the same time throwing up its hands over the inability to enforce radio code. Indian radio desperately needs a course correction. http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct052004/edst.asp From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 12:16:08 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 10:16:08 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] DTH Radio Message-ID: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/9b6c1c0a/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Prasar Bharati all set to launch DTH radio October 06 Vinod Behl Prasar Bharati is all set to launch radio channels on its DTH television platform. The 24-hour DTH service will provide different language channels, which will be available across India as well as in few neighbouring countries. The DTH radio channels are targeting regional language listeners living away from their native place and outside their language area. One will be able to listen to the programmes in mother tongue and stay up-dated with the happenings in the native city or state through DTH service on TV sets. These radio channels, however, will not be available on terrestrial broadcast and an ordinary radio receiver set cannot be tuned in to catch these signals. Prasar Bharati’s DTH radio service will cover all the prominent stations of the language area concerned, subject to the availability of linkage between the stations from where DTH programmes are up-linked and other radio stations in the language area. The radio channels will broadcast news and entertainment programmes with minimum education content. All India Radio will introduce DTH broadcasts in two phases. In the first phase, 10 digital radio channels will be launched while nine more will go on air in the second phase. © exchange4media 2004 From gautam at i4donline.net Fri Oct 8 11:05:09 2004 From: gautam at i4donline.net (Gautam Navin) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:35:09 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Open invitation to all interested in submitting article for i4d Dec, 04 issue on e-Governance References: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007801c4ad15$eb3cdf10$7b6464c8@Gautam> Dear All, As you all might know that i4d publishes a monthly thematic magazine on ICT4D, we therefore invite all of you to contribute articles for December 2004 issue which is on e-Governance. We request you to send us articles, reports, snippets etc. for the same. Kindly limit your article to 3000 words. We welcome reviews of the books published since the year 2000. The book review should be within 1500 words and must contain the cover image of the respective book. Kindly send us the images of the author/s along with their breif profile. We would be grateful if author could send us some relevant images that can go along with the article. Images should be of good quality and must be scanned at the resolution of 300dpi. We archived all the previous isssues on www.i4donline.net and therefore suggest you to have a look of the same just for the sake references. The link of previous i4d issue on e-Governance is http://www.i4donline.net/issue/nov03/content.htm . Kindly send article as an attachment through email to gautam at i4donline.net .You can also submit article online at http://www.i4donline.net/submit_article.asp Kindly send us the article latest by November 20, 2004. Please feel free to ask for any further information or assistance. Looking forward to your positive reply. With best regards, Gautam Navin Research Associate, i4d ----------------------------------------- CSDMS G4, Sector-39 Noida 201 301, India Tel: +91 120 2502180 to 87 Fax: + 91 120 2500060 Mobile: +91 9818125257 Email: gautam at i4donline.net Web: www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- Subscribe to daily i4d newsletter: Log on to www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041008/a99541c8/attachment-0001.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 11 09:49:48 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 11 Oct 2004 07:49:48 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] about private FM Message-ID: <20041011074948.4250.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041011/4c8c8da1/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- RADIO FAILS TO TUNE INTO RIGHT FREQUENCY October 11 Anushree Madan Mohan Given the Congress uproar at the General Elections and the party’s subsequent rise into power, what has been the impact on the radio industry? Is it still amounting to a process of endless negotiations and lack of a concrete initiative? Is political leadership perhaps shadowing the potential of this industry? To find answers to many such queries, exchange4media looked back in the history and reached out to some of the industry experts. In July 2003, the Union I&B Ministry set up Radio Broadcast Policy Committee, under the chairmanship of FICCI’s Amit Mitra, to work out a ‘transparent and effective auction process’ for allotment of radio frequencies. While the committee was entirely focused on commercial radio, there were some token references to policy for niche and non-commercial channels in its terms of reference. The committee brought out a report whose main concern was to ease the way for private FM broadcasters to switch from a license-fee regime to a revenue sharing system. In a more recent scheme of events, in 2004, New Delhi brought broadcasting under the definition of ‘telecommunication services’, effectively making the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India the regulator for both radio and television. A month later, the ministry sent the Mitra Committee report to Trai, seeking ‘appropriate recommendations’. Now that the recommendations have been made, elaborate deliberations are occurring on the same front. While it amounts to all reactions and no action from the ministry, there haven’t been sustained efforts from the private FM camp as well, claim certain quarters. Says AP Parigi, MD, Entertainment Network and CEO of Times Infotainment, “All politicians in this country are aware of the problems that the radio industry is facing. The new government may be over a hundred days old, but it fully comprehends that the current system of licensing is slowly eroding all private FM stations. We have had intense talks with the government in the past, but post TRAI recommendations, there have been continued and lengthy deliberations on the part of the ministry and players are not too clear about the headway achieved on the same. Some part of the same could be attributed to the key players of the industry itself. A big regret is the inability to get the entire radio group to sit together on a regular basis and thrash out common issues.” He continues, “Back in 2001, thanks to the McKinsey reports, we had brought in all the operators on a common platform via video conferencing to deal in an in-depth basis with the menace of licensing. With time, it’s become increasingly difficult to come together and to sort out issues such as licensing, octroi, service tax etc. So, now you find competition pulling off from certain areas, some have given notices to shut down and there are others that have actually shut down. By now, you should have had at least 400 radio stations in India. And here we are looking at who’s going to shut down next.” Despite all this, Parigi is hopeful to see some pro-active actions from the government’s side. He states, “I am a positive person, and I’m sure that our efforts would yield to some noteworthy reforms from the government’s side which would pave way to some other form of revenue sharing, rather than the current licensing regime.” Talking to exchange4media, a Radio Mid-Day spokesperson asserts, “Things are in a flux at the moment with the government deliberating over the Trai recommendations and the lack of a solid foundation as far as players are concerned. It would be a lot more beneficial to the industry as a whole if we had a committee for the radio industry, which could look after the overall interests and lobby hard on the government’s front. After the elections things are in a standstill with no clear action being taken from either party. In plain language, the radio industry is still stuck in a limbo.” Jagadesh Babu, Financial Controller, Music Broadcast Private Limited (Radio City), asserts, “We are still waiting for the opinion of the I&B Ministry on the recommendations from the task force and Trai. It is my belief that the private FM players have been working very hard to put together a united front and to represent the problems to the ministry over the last few years – a fact which has remained unchanged even in recent times. As far as the committee beat is concerned, in order to organise the category better, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation has set up a radio sub committee and is keen to represent the private FM radio group.” However, as one looks deep into the Indian radio industry, lots of interesting things keep coming up. In August 1953, BV Keskar, a puritanical minister in charge of the information and broadcasting domain, delivered a broadside on commercial broadcasting. Commercial radio, as he said, would fall into the clutches of foreign interests and become a slave to advertising revenue. These forces, Keskar had warned, were “bound to bring down the quality of radio programmes and convert them into a cheap vaudeville show”. Long fifty years have gone. Commercial radio is back on its agenda, but it is still lying unresolved. © exchange4media 2004 From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 13 11:01:36 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 13 Oct 2004 09:01:36 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041013/e2aa9137/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, Oct 20). The information is not on the TRAI website yet, so we'll have to wait for a while for venue details etc. I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. Sajan. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 Frederick Noronha(FN) wrote : >Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI's) advisor Mr Bhattacharya phone to say that they would be having specific open house discussions in Delhi (Monday) on Oct 18 and in Mumbai on Oct 20 (Wednesday). The adverts for the same are to be announced in the papers shortly. He was just giving us advance notice. Could those in either of the cities kindly plan some initiatives? FN From arunlists at softhome.net Wed Oct 13 13:20:55 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:50:55 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: "sajan venniyoor" This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, > Oct 20). ... > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but > do we have a choice? Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he mentioned that they need a proper definition of community radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. I have a problem with any definition that prevents law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue share one, for making access to community radio more restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not just have one FM radio policy?

> Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well.
 >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the open house discussion will be the list of questions in the discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. Arun ___ >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, what is different now? I remember, that at the time when Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The government would like to deny certain groups access to broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way at least people from other communities can hear what is being said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. Such an archive would not just have a negative, control function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content between community radio stations, which would save a lot by reduced reinventing of the wheel. I also believe that there is urgent need for internal discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio could counteract this.   Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of community radio, would be for the government to ask each applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. The government must then insist that the station ensure fair access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why does the government? Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an obvious argument. Sincerely, Arun Mehta From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 14 09:47:26 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 14 Oct 2004 07:47:26 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/227c9f66/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Here's TRAI's Notice on their Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues Related to Community Radio". I am also appending the Issues for Consultation (from TRAI's Consultation Paper on CR). Sajan. ------ TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA A-2/14, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI – 110029. The TRAI will be holding Open House Discussion in Delhi and Mumbai on the following subject at the date, venue and time given below:- Licensing issues related to Community Radio 18.10.2004(Monday) Kautilya Hall, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 10.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. 20.10.2004(Wednesday) Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All interested agencies / individuals are invited to participate. The consultation paper is available on the TRAI Website www.trai.gov.in. Issues posed for public consultation will also be available at the venue of the Open House Discussion. For any clarification, please contact Shri Rakesh Kacker, Advisor (B&CS), Ph. 011-26713291, Fax. 011-26713442, email: rkacker at trai.gov.in. ---------------------- Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? f) What should be the period of license? g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in Thu Oct 14 11:17:38 2004 From: drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in (DRISHTI) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:47:38 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Answers to TRAI References: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007501c4b1cf$37278520$9b31013d@mypc> we [drishti & kmvs] will not be able to make it to the TRAI consultations on 18th and 20th. but hopefully some of will be there. most of the questions this consultations seeks to address have been raised by our group time and again..yet i am putting down answers to some of them so that those going to the consultation can raise it on our behalf. HERE GOES... Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? THE CR STATION SHOULD BE OWNED, CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY THE COMMUNITY WITH NOT-FOR-PROFIT MOTIVE b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? YES. c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? INDIAN CITIZENS d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? NO e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? NON-LEGAL APPLICANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS REGISTER THE PROPOSED CR STATION IN THE INTERIM PERIOD OF APPLICATION AND THE ACTUAL LICENSE BEING GRANTED. f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? YES. INFACT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE NOT ON THE TYPE OF ORGANISATION APPLYING BUT THAT THE APPLICANT OPERATES THE CR STATION FOR NON-PROFIT AND COMMUNITY DRIVEN PURPOSES. Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? YES. IF THE APPLICANT SO DESIRES b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? THAT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO EASEN THE PROCESS. INFACT THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE WINDOW FOR CLEARING APPLICATIONS c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? YES. d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? YES. 6 MONTHS f) What should be the period of license? 3 YEARS MINIMUM g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? 50 KILOMETER RADIUS. h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOCATE FREQUENCIES FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR CR STATIONS i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? THE PROPOSED CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ANY 'LEGAL' GRANTS, WHETHER FROM THE STATE, CENTRE OR FOREIGN AGENCIES b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? YES. OUR INTENTION SHOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF THE STATION WITH A PURPOSE NOT-FOR-PROFIT. SO ALL REVENUES WILL HAVE TO PLOUGHED BACK INTO RUNNING THE COMMUNITY DRIVEN STATION UNLIKE PRIVATE FM RADIOS WHERE PROFITS GO INTO PRIVATE POCKETS. c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? YES. THE CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ALL 'LEGAL' SOURCES OF MONEY d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? NO. WE NEED TO KEEP REMINDING OURSELVES THAT CR STATIONS ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT VENTURES FOR AND BY THE COMMUNITY. THE GOVERMENT CANNOT DISCOURAGE OR PENALISE THIS VENTURE WITH A FEE! e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? YES. THATS THE MINIMUM THE GOVERMENT SHOULD CONTRIBUTE IN THIS WHOLE VENTURE CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO INVEST ANY MONEY IN SETTING UP THESE STATIONS. Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? CR STATIONS CAN FOLLOW THE EXISITING AIR PROGRAMME CODE b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? WHY SHOULD IT CONTINUE? WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? YES. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY RELGIOUS PROGRAMMES? THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION WITH PROGRAMMES WITH RELIGIOUS [OR POLITICAL] CONTENT. WHAT WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR IS PROGRAMMES THAT MAY HARM COMMUNAL, RELIGIOUS HARMONY OR IS AGAINST ANY CONSTITUTIONALY ENSHRINED PRINCIPALS OF DEMOCRACY. Hope and wish that consulation is meaningful and fruitful!! In harmony, Stalin K. For, Drishti Media Collective & Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/f8fa6731/attachment-0001.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 08:35:05 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:05 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> Message-ID: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Arun and others, On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think it’s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because that means he (trusting his credentials for the moment) is actually thinking about it, especially because of the perception that revenue-sharing must be exempt for CR licenses. (I think that perception is problematic). But on the DEFINTION bug, here's a bit on the South African experience. SA and India in particular have much in common particularly in terms of the concern that usually gets centred around the term 'commmunity'. We have caste and relgious stratification in India and SA has been recently rebuilding its institutions from the legacy of massive racial divisions. I had the good fortune recently of running into the Nov 2003 Ph.D thesis of Tanja E Bosch that studied Bush Radio of Cape Town, South Africa in depth. The thesis is titled 'Radio, community, and identity in South Africa: A rhizomatic study of Bush Radio in Cape Town" (289 pp. I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this list who may want it. I've taken the liberty of reproducing text from a few parts of the thesis. I am pretty sure the May I&B-UNDP consultations would have had at least some folks who are/were already familiar with this. But many others on this list may not be. The dissertation was done to the College of Communication, Ohio University: BEGIN QUOTES, Courtesy of Tanja E Bosch's paper: What constitutes community radio? "The key concepts underlying community media are access, participation and self-management (Lewis, 1993). The public is brought closer to communication systems through their ability to access materials and the availability of a range of relevant materials. Access includes feedback, whereby audience members interact directly with producers of messages, participate during the broadcast of programs, and are encouraged to comment and criticize. Participation implies the widespread involvement of ordinary people at the levels of production, decision-making, management and planning. Self-management is thus the height of participation, through which the target audience exercises decision-making on all levels. (Lewis, 1993)" Who is the 'community'? "While Bush Radio has always targeted a specific geographic area, after the end of apartheid and abolition of the Group Areas Act, black people are no longer concentrated in those areas. Furthermore, the station's broadcast range extends to areas outside of the Cape Flats, and many listeners call the station from these areas. The audience is no longer a black audience. Some white presenters work at the station, and there are many calls from white South Africans. The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community as a group of people who are interested in alternative information". END QUOTES Revenue sharing and CR: I am personally of the opinion that TRAI is not siezed of the differences between the various sources of funds that a CR station may use for its operations. Only some cash inflows of a CR station may be subjectable to revenue-sharing under the same terms as commercial-FM licensees (say 4%, if ever that happens, as per TRAI recommendations for the commercial FM operators). If only non-profit organizations are given CR licenses, many of the cash inflows to stations could become exempt from revenue shares, as they must be. For all grants, listener payments/memberships etc that come into a station for funding its expenses, the government must not ask for a revenue-share, since these moneys are technically donations. This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This way no special organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR alone -- something that will bog everything down further. Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little experience of the latter, in radio. If a CR station earns Rs.1 lakh in a given year on underwriting (i.e. the station will announce the name of the program supporter/organization/group along with a slogan/line about that group, as opposed to airing an AD of that entity), those revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). -Subbu > -----Original Message----- > From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net > [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Arun Mehta > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:21 AM > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? > > > > From: "sajan venniyoor" > This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai > (Wednesday, > > Oct 20). ... > > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our > strategy, and > > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, > done that... but > > do we have a choice? > > Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? > > Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he > mentioned that they need a proper definition of community > radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations > will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. > > I have a problem with any definition that prevents > law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- > as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community > radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if > some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument > holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of > revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special > facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom > it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? > > What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue > share one, for making access to community radio more > restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not > just have one FM radio policy? > > > Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template > for the open > > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. > > >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the > open house discussion will be the list of questions in the > discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. > Arun > ___ > >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: > The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, > what is different now? I remember, that at the time when > Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people > pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between > a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have > computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily > for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do > mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this > distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have > access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. > > Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding > up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the > direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of > Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right > to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. > Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? > > Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The > government would like to deny certain groups access to > broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It > fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is > that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and > does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading > through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread > rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we > are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather > than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way > at least people from other communities can hear what is being > said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The > government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is > broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and > newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. > Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle > such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to > enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council > receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything > broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a > central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A > single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. > Such an archive would not just have a negative, control > function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content > between community radio stations, which would save a lot by > reduced reinventing of the wheel. > > I also believe that there is urgent need for internal > discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or > temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, > allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio > could counteract this.   > > Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of > community radio, would be for the government to ask each > applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. > The government must then insist that the station ensure fair > access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. > > Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by > Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a > model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to > reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish > or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free > speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between > radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why > does the government? > > Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the > government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an > obvious argument. > > Sincerely, > > Arun Mehta > From vvcrishna at softhome.net Fri Oct 15 10:45:31 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:15:31 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 11:35 PM -0700 10/14/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this >list who may want it. Yes, please. >The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community >as a group of people who are >interested in alternative information. This is the beauty and strength of broadcast, that the potential audience is anyone within reach. To make the community meaningful, as we have seen in countless examples, there has to be a sense of connectedness - for the least developed parts of this country, obviously such connectedness cannot arise from tele-links (ie phone-ins and the like), hence our focus (at Radiophony, I mean) on low power rather than community as the defining characteristic. If I may add some small amount of personal experience, I met Zane Ibrahim, Bush Radio's founder, in Kathmandu last year. I never got the impression that he was xenophobic, or would favor xenophobia, in any way - quite the opposite. On the other hand, SA's regulatory authority, ICASA, was also represented at AMARC-8, and its position was loudly reminiscent of our own besaddled bureaucrats - "radio is capable of being greatly misused", "do not allow it to fall into the wrong hands", "terrorists are just waiting to get their hands on it", you know the sort of thing. Fortunately for us, TRAI appears to have a better handle on things. We also have a notable track record in India of powerful and violent alternate political movements - and none of them use radio to foment local unrest. Is it that the medium just does not work for this purpose? In a recent report from Nepal that we must all have read, the incipient MCC radio station/s seem to have run into the same problem - propaganda does not make for listenership, nor is it effective for disseminating violence. Whether TRAI's recommendations will be taken seriously is another matter, but at least this is the window through which we have a chance to be heard. Let us not waste this opportunity by aiming too low. >This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that >licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit >organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This >way no special >organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR >alone -- something that will bog everything down further. This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is wishful, I am afraid. It won't be easy for the more deprived to undertake what may seem to us city dwellers to be a routine deal of paperwork, or even to comprehend the necessity for it. Why create this problem? The Act and its judicious enforcement are in any case far from perfect. >The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial >advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was >addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial >CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, >the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of >station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make >CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue >generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). Nothing exists in a vacuum. Communication development through the very first stage of ICT - FM - will not end here. Once media awareness is created, we will logically and rationally expect other forms of ICT to be introduced, since a demand for them will evolve. Audio streams may become available on the Net, for instance. Will revenues from Net subscribers be counted in the revenue sharing model? Will ads placed on the site be counted? Will T-shirt or handicraft sales generated from the site also be counted towards station revenues under this heading? Is it really necessary (or even possible) to dot every single 'i' and cross every single 't' ad nauseam before a genuinely development oriented policy can be conceptualised? In our submission to TRAI the first time round, we opined that a new policy is needed speedily, one that will encourage the flowering of tens of thousands, not hundreds, of stations. Some of these will fail, probably, and not just because of poor policy planning. Why add hundreds of clauses of a needlessly detailed policy to the list of possible reasons for failure? Surely we need not be ashamed to announce a genuinely interim policy for the next five years, in the expectation that we will all be much wiser with actual experience of local radio under the belt? The previous 'wisdom' has already been shown up, so rather than merely try to do one better this time round, a truly liberally oriented policy may open up this sector to create the foundation for a genuine information revolution. Revenue exploitation may also come about better when there is something to tax, something better scaled to a nation of a billion people and 600k villages. Currently we have 28 (and that number is dwindling) stations running in the 42 cities and towns for which licenses have been granted, according to today's Indian Express, Mumbai edition. And get SACFA and WPC out of the way, they have not yet learned their job is facilitation, not official terrorism. -- Vickram From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:27:09 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 15 Oct 2004 11:27:09 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041015/e8c47cf8/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it’s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the ‘community’ is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 07:54:19 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:24:19 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> References: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 11:27 AM +0000 10/15/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and >cultural needs of the specific community it serves. Just a point to reflect on here: commercial channels in Mumbai and other cities tend to broadcast in Hindi far more than in English, despite the apparent English-language bias of the yuppies who appear to form their major listener strength, judging from the actual content. Can anyone argue that these channels are not reflecting the needs of their particular communities, far more accurately than could be judged by looking at the language of newspapers that aim at the same audience? There are quizzes and many many interactive programmes that examine urban issues, and at least in Mumbai the traffic reporting (highly critical in a linear city that moves over two million people around per hour in the crush periods) is almost completely listener-driven. Very empirical, but those three phrases cover 'educational', 'cultural' and 'developmental'. Collaborating to divide the use of spectrum between different classes of users is inviting potentially antagonistic and conflicting behaviour between them. This has already been visible in the previous Open House, especially here in Mumbai. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 08:54:26 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:54:26 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <00d801c4b34d$007dbab0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, ~~minor error in earlier message. I meant to say that TRAI does NOT seem to be aware of underwriting/advertising differential. Also, second error, I meant to say that perhaps underwriting revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are NOT commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. I realize in your experience (India) that underwriting may have fudged long enough advertising, but this isn't so everywhere (country). ~~~the defintions issue: My understanding is that TRAI's advisor/others already have access to the report from the I&B-UNDP meeting and through that, the particular CR definitions you cite as well. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of 'development/NGO' sounding definitions, but I'd also be the first to agree that there's little point in having a hair splitting exercise over perceptions and definitions in themselves. There's plenty of definitions flying around, and given that TRAI did some upfront research before setting many of their questions, my guess would be that they are not unfamiliar with the trends in thinking. The question to be asked it seems is WHY TRAI is raising the definition issue now. They didn't deem it fit to make it an all important question in the CR paper. (maybe better late than never it will get hashed out again at the consultations). -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:27 AM To: A list on community radio in India Subject: Re: RE: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it's a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the 'community' is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 09:14:25 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:14:25 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were > adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban > agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the > problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in > banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs > are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. > > They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and > expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered > under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is > wishful, I am afraid. Vickram, I acknowledge there are several answers to the 'legal entity' question, and hopefully this will get throughput at the consultations next week. But I suspect you are misreading my remarks. Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. -Subbu From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Sat Oct 16 10:59:48 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:29:48 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: Hi all, I want to know of any prospect/project of running community radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and policy implications for such initiatives? Regards, Atanu Atanu Garai ICT Advocacy Officer OneWorld South Asia C- 2/6, Safdurjung Development Area New Delhi - 110016 India. T +91 11 51756975 F +91 11 51756976 E atanu.garai at oneworld.net www.digitalopportunity.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041016/9b30146b/attachment-0001.htm From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 11:29:15 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:59:15 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 12:14 AM -0700 10/16/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of >NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for >licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is >already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. Not at all. I am not in favor of any exclusionary policy, that is all I want to say. I say nothing about the worthiness of any NGO. There certainly are many whose work is exemplary. The Charitable Societies Act or whatever it is called should not be the starting point, it is setting the bar too high. >We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to >get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be >broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups >that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural >India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users >associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to >applicants from here first and then look at other situations where >no organizing exists at all. Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have a working base of operational stations? Do you think if a village had a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? An ideal interim policy would be inclusive, with exclusionary principles being added on a need basis only after real evidence is collected. Unlike some others, including government officers whose quotes have been seen in the local and international press, I have an abiding faith in both the Constitution and in the people of India. Not necessarily in that order, or in any order, mind you. -- Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 13:12:21 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:42:21 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 20:30:10 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:30:10 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <013901c4b3ae$3108d3c0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest > number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have > a working base of operational stations? I don't disagree with this at all. It's a good thing to be inclusionary, rather than restrictive, and let experiences tell, like you point out. But these are high level principles and nuances that you and I can agree should guide the devil and its details. What I'm unable to visualize how this might work in practice though. > Do you think if a village had > a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? I realize that in practice a handful of individuals can telecast over a few kms with a 1W-50W transmitter out of a room with a terrace. But look at the problem from the point of view of the license assigner. Who should a license be given to in terms of fixing ownership of process and even the few silly formalities that will necessary from to time? An individual? It looks like we're both visualizing different situations. Explain a little more about how an 'unincorporated' entity will maintain accounts, file tax statements, WITHOUT mixing up the individuals' own finances with it. What if the individual had a disagreement with someone else (very very common in India) and decided to move with his/her license to some other village/town? Also, forgetting these things for the moment -- what really concerns many is that I&B is unable (YET) to come to terms quickly with allowing commercial-FM stations air news! That's our starting point! I don't say that means we should water ourselves down and not assert for the rainbow with TRAI. But perhaps what we ask must be understood and packaged by TRAI in such a way that the quickest middle path can be found to get an open-policy rolled out and scalp away and other things as we go along. (again like you point out, assuming that I&B will even take TRAI seriously). -Subbu From arunlists at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 05:36:50 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:06:50 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041017090650.169617681.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: Subramaniam Vincent > We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to > get > > the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad > enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that > are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is > covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et > > al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and > then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. It is hard to get the government to reopen a policy debate. Now that we have the opportunity, we should ask for a sensible policy. Please remember, that by agreeing to a criterion for "allowing" an organisation to run a community radio station, we are giving the government an excuse to deny people such access. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but could someone tell me why it should be any harder to get permission to start a radio station, than to start a newspaper, assuming, of course, that spectrum isn't a constraint? Does Article 19 of the Constitution mean nothing to us? Are we not prepared to defend it? Arun From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 18:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio Message-ID: Forwarding this snippet, partly in response to Atanu's mail and partly cos we had a bit of discussion earlier if I recall rightly, about using iTrip with the iPod. >From: Shekhar Krishnan >Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio >Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:44:29 +0530 > > > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: andy at remotelinux.com >Date: 8 October 2004 1.32.52 GMT+05:30 >To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net >Subject: Re: Neighborhood Public Radio >Reply-To: andy at remotelinux.com > >on this thread a relevent topic may be podcasting, a concept im taking to >mean as audio blogging but is expanding to other areas. namely how >http://rhzradio.net/ is taking the idea of microradio a step further, >encouraging volunteers to setup a micro transmitter in their home for less >then $100 to broadcast the station via a distributed-model and within the >law. when this is multiplexed to include video and text a generation of >multimedia networks to over (or under) shadow corporate media jaugernauts >will exist. the information wants to be free. its a no brainer to take >this a step further with dynamic dns to add a layer of cost free domain >system that can exist with dns and existing networks to expand free >comminication channels without the domination of monetary and legal >interferences. viva libre. > >andy > > > > > ># distributed via : no commercial use without permission ># is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, ># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets ># more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body ># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net > > >_____ > >Shekhar Krishnan >9, Supriya, 2nd Floor >Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road no.4 >Dadar, Mumbai 400014 >India > >http://crit.org.in/members/shekhar -- Vickram From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Mon Oct 18 06:56:44 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:26:44 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am aware of this that practically WLAN can not replace the model of community radio we are thinking of. Or at least radio seems to have high degree of mobility with good reception quality, that WLAN cant provide. I am trying to explore how much a community could save and per head expenses if all needful ICT applications could run over a single community network infrastructure. That perhaps will make sense even we take into account very low per capita income of rural India in developmental context. It seems wi-fi has promises of being all inclusive ICT infrastructure, even integrating cellular phone calls. Policy (both recommendations from TRAI and DOT-WPC) seems to be favorable for establishing community network, but we can see the prospect of such network only when it is brought out. Regards, Atanu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net]On Behalf Of Vickram Crishna Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:42 PM To: A list on community radio in India Cc: India-Gii Subject: Re: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/2a596292/attachment-0001.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 18 11:50:49 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 18 Oct 2004 09:50:49 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/ee466e41/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I’ll share some first impressions with you. (I’m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). The meeting was fairly well attended – we counted some 26 heads (not including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other’s territory and the whole thing will land in court. “Give me figures that I can use,” he said. We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a single hertz of the spectrum without a fight. Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply that already apply to other media like print and TV.) TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so unilaterally. Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. Sajan.  From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 08:46:17 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 06:46:17 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Mumbai on 20 Oct 2004 Message-ID: <20041019064617.24151.qmail@webmail9.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/2cd31d85/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear Chandita and others, TRAI's Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues related to Community Radio" will be held tomorrow in Mumbai. Date: 20.10.2004 (Wednesday) Venue: Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai Time: 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All the members on this list who live in (and around) Mumbai should make a valiant attempt to attend the meeting. Rope in a few journos, if you can. Just for the record, TRAI also serves a pretty decent lunch! Sajan. From arunlists at softhome.net Tue Oct 19 09:14:35 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:44:35 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> References: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041019124435.308580065.arunlists@softhome.net> Two issues need urgent attention. Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc to the private sector. They are likely to move over to revenue sharing, but aren't yet there. In order not to charge community radio these fees, a clear distinction is needed. Now, what kind of definition can we live with? The kind that does not exclude any genuine entity wishing to start a community radio station? Second intruiging possibility, we can claim, for community radio, public broadcaster status. That way, we get access to reserved frequencies, and other benefits that government seeks to secure for Prasar Bharati. Do we want to try for that now, or wait until community stations are stable? Anyway, community radio definition first, and for good measure, of public service broadcasting. At http://www.rabe.ch/kulturradio/kulturradio_eng.html I found Definition of a community radio (in accordance with www.amrac.org) Community radios ... 1. ... promote the right to communication and facilitate the freedom of speech, encourage creative and diverse statements and contribute to a democratic process and a pluralistic society. 2. ... provide education and production possibilities and are responsible for the transmission. They encourage local creative talents, cultivate local traditions and broadcast an entertaining, educational and development promoting programme for its listeners. 3. ... secure the ownership of the radio in a way, that it is owned by local representatives of a visible community or an interest community. 4. ... are editorially independent of governments, trade, religious institutions and political parties in the compilation of their radio programme. 5. ... make sure that marginalised groups and minorities have access to the radio and secure as well as promote cultural and linguistic diversity. 6. ... make sure that the listeners receive information on the base of multiple sources and points of view and allow space for opposing points of view from each person or organisation. 7. ... are organisations, which work on a non-profit basis in order to maintain their independency and are financed by a multitude of donors. 8. ... recognise and respect voluntary work and acknowledge the right of paid work for organisational matters and for the elaboration of working structures, which are beneficial for all people involved. 9. ... elaborate management forms, programme structures and working conditions, which rule out any discrimination and are accessible to all people involved, employees and voluntary helpers alike. 10. ... maintain communication with other community radios in order to promote and raise understanding on peace questions, tolerance, democracy and development. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Public%20service%20broadcasting says Public service broadcasting (often abbreviated to PSB) A public service broadcaster is not broadcasting for commercial ends but rather aims at social betterment. For this reason, PSB is often incompatible with commercial stations. For the same reason, it is often seen as being overly paternalistic in nature. Perhaps the most famous example of a "public service broadcaster" (in theory if not in practice) is the BBC. There is no standard definition of what PSB is exactly, although a number of official bodies have attempted to pick out the key characteristics. The Broadcasting Research Unit lists the following: * Geographic universality - that the stations' broadcasts are available nationwide, with no exception .. * Catering for all interests and tastes ... * Catering for minorities - much as above, but with racial and sexual minorities etc. ... * Concern for national identity and community - this essentially means that the stations should in the most part commission programmes from within the country, which may be more expensive than importing shows from abroad. * Detachment from vested interests and government - in other words, programming should be impartial, and the stations should not pander to the desires of advertisers or government. In practice however, such impartiality is questionable, even with the BBC. ... * One broadcasting system to be directly funded by the corpus of users ... * Competition in good programming rather than numbers - quality is the prime concern with a true public service broadcaster. ... * Guidelines to liberate programme makers and not restrict them - in the UK, guidelines, and not laws, govern what a programme maker can and cannot do, although these guidelines can be backed up by hefty penalties. Arun > ------------Original Message------------ > From: sajan venniyoor > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Date: Mon, Oct-18-2004 3:21 PM > Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions > > Dear all, > > The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I’ll share some > first impressions with you. (I’m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone > else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). > > The meeting was fairly well attended – we counted some 26 heads (not > including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, > Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal > (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK > Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. > > The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria > (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. > > Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is > concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one > distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear > distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of > area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement > revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, > sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other’s territory and the > whole thing will land in court. “Give me figures that I can use,” he > said. > > We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some > figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by > commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi > team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a > single hertz of the spectrum without a fight.  > > Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, > eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that > eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply > that already apply to other media like print and TV.) > > TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, > work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations > without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so > unilaterally. > > Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in > Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. > > Sajan.  > > > _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 12:23:20 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 10:23:20 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/6fc0f0e3/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let’s take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 07:59:09 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:59:09 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <002401c4b669$f0efb880$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other related rulings/laws) would serve as the legal framework that the SC itself might use to check whether a policy for commercial and non-commercial licensing is conformant and if not, which parties need relief. Given that, the question of distinction and policy parameters (for items Sajan has lined up) becomes more specific. 1. What distinctions will be legally tenable? 2. Which parameters of this list that TRAI was figures are likely be to the most contentious? Members on this list who've already studied this matter for other countries (within their respective legal frameworks) can perhaps focus the conversation here. -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:23 AM To: cr-india at sarai.net Subject: Re: Re: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let's take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/588f3ee8/attachment-0001.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 08:07:52 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:07:52 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <003401c4b66b$28a64e00$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other related rulings/laws) would serve as the legal framework that the SC itself might use to check whether a policy for commercial and non-commercial licensing is conformant and if not, which parties need relief. Given that, the question of distinction and policy parameters (for items Sajan has lined up) becomes more specific. 1. What distinctions will be legally tenable? 2. Which parameters of this list that TRAI was figures are likely be to the most contentious? Members on this list who've already studied this matter for other countries (within their respective legal frameworks) can perhaps focus the conversation here. -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:23 AM To: cr-india at sarai.net Subject: Re: Re: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let's take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 09:10:00 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:10:00 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] A GRAIN OF RICE FOR COMMUNITY RADIO Message-ID: A GRAIN OF RICE FOR COMMUNITY RADIO ----------------------------------- (18 oct 2004) Community Radio Madanpokhara (CRM) of Nepal, a community-owned radio station, has adopted a novel idea to financing its activities. Local villagers has donated rice and money worth USD 650 to run the station. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96199/1138/6904 From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 09:10:44 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:10:44 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP Message-ID: NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP -------------------------------------------------------- (18 oct 2004) The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA) in partnership with Anna University is going to organise an international workshop on community radio from 13 to 18 December, 2004 in New Delhi. Managers of community radio stations will learn techniques of installation, commissioning and management of the radio stations in the workshop. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96182/1138/6904 From ashishmukherjee at hotmail.com Wed Oct 20 11:33:40 2004 From: ashishmukherjee at hotmail.com (ashish mukherjee) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:33:40 +0000 Subject: [cr-india] INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP IN CHENNAI Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041020/c92750c1/attachment-0001.htm From sreedher at annauniv.edu Wed Oct 20 11:44:57 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:14:57 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP Message-ID: <200410200944.i9K9ivbf002216@ns.annauniv.edu> The workshop is being held at Chennai and not New Delhi. regards sreedher > NEW DELHI TO HOST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RADIO WORKSHOP > -------------------------------------------------------- > (18 oct 2004) The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia > (CEMCA) in partnership with Anna University is going to organise an > international workshop on community radio from 13 to 18 December, > 2004 in New Delhi. Managers of community radio stations will learn > techniques of installation, commissioning and management of the radio > stations in the workshop. > http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96182/1138/69 04 > _______________________________________________ > cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From radio at oneworld.net Wed Oct 20 14:38:02 2004 From: radio at oneworld.net (radio at oneworld.net) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:38:02 +0100 Subject: [cr-india] OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update Message-ID: <1098275882.41765c2a5251b@your.oneworld.net> OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update *************************************************** WIN SONY DVD CAMCORDER OR MINIDSK WALKMAN Great news for everyone sending in entries for the OneWorld/MTV Staying Alive 2004 AUDIO and VIDEO Competition...there are now even more prizes to be won. In addition to having your PSA (Public Service Announcement) streamed on both OneWorld and MTV's websites and receiving a glass plaque commemorating your achievement, thanks to donation by SONY (www.sony.com), winners will also receive equipment to help create future productions. VIDEO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY DVD Camcorder. AUDIO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY minidisk walkman. The deadline for submission of entries is fast approaching - 11th November 2004- so there's no time to spare in the race to complete those short audio clips. Remember each PSA you enter must be between 30-60 seconds, should inform viewers about HIV/AIDS and have a specific focus on women and girls. The competition is only open to young people aged between 15 and 34 years of age. ***For more information about the competition see the main competition pages... for AUDIO: http://aidsradio.oneworld.net/section/aidsradio/wad2004 for VIDEO: http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?article=33 ***If you would like an entry pack email to you, write to us at radio at oneworld.net (AUDIO) or tv at oneworld.net (VIDEO), putting in the subject line "OneWorld/MTV 2004 Competition" We look forward to receiving your entries. OneWorld Radio&TV From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 17:36:47 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:36:47 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] OneWorld / MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:07 +0100 From: radio at oneworld.net Subject: OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update OneWorld/MTV World AIDS Day 2004 Competition update *************************************************** WIN SONY DVD CAMCORDER OR MINIDSK WALKMAN Great news for everyone sending in entries for the OneWorld/MTV Staying Alive 2004 AUDIO and VIDEO Competition...there are now even more prizes to be won. In addition to having your PSA (Public Service Announcement) streamed on both OneWorld and MTV's websites and receiving a glass plaque commemorating your achievement, thanks to donation by SONY (www.sony.com), winners will also receive equipment to help create future productions. VIDEO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY DVD Camcorder. AUDIO - The winner and second place runner-up will each receive a brand new SONY minidisk walkman. The deadline for submission of entries is fast approaching - 11th November 2004- so there's no time to spare in the race to complete those short audio clips. Remember each PSA you enter must be between 30-60 seconds, should inform viewers about HIV/AIDS and have a specific focus on women and girls. The competition is only open to young people aged between 15 and 34 years of age. ***For more information about the competition see the main competition pages... for AUDIO: http://aidsradio.oneworld.net/section/aidsradio/wad2004 for VIDEO: http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?article=33 ***If you would like an entry pack email to you, write to us at radio at oneworld.net (AUDIO) or tv at oneworld.net (VIDEO), putting in the subject line "OneWorld/MTV 2004 Competition" We look forward to receiving your entries. OneWorld Radio&TV From media at web.net Wed Oct 20 18:11:23 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:11:23 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] Radio Manifesto now available in 5 languages Message-ID: From: "Sarah McNeill" Subject: Radio Manifesto now available in 5 languages Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:36:40 +0100 X-Priority: 3 The Radio Manifesto document http://www.worldradioforum.org/icyrmanifesto.shtml can now be downloaded in Portuguese, French, Spanish and English from the World Radio Forum website, and in Russian from the FYCE website (go to Radio Manifesto and click on the FYCE link for the Russian version). World Radio Forum thanks partner organisations, 4WSMCA Brazil (Portuguese); Plan West Africa media team (French); Instituto de Defensa Legal,Peru (Spanish); and the Foundation of Youth Culture & Education (FYCE), Ukraine (Russian), for the work they have completed in translating the Radio Manifesto text. Sarah McNeill Director World Radio Forum www.worldradioforum.org You can read or download the Radio Manifesto for free in these languanges. English The Radio Manifesto (English Word document in RTF format) Click to read or Right Click and select "Save to your computer." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifesto.rtf The Radio Manifesto (English PDF) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifesto.pdf Portuguese Manifesto do Rádio (Documento do Word em português no formato RTF) Clique para ler ou clique com o botão direito e selecione "salvar no seu computador." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoPortuguese.rtf Manifesto do Rádio (PDF em português) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoPortuguese.pdf French Manifeste Radio (Document francais Word en format RTF) Cliquez pour lire ou cliquez à droite et choisisez 'Sauvegarder' pour enregistrer le document sur votre ordinateur. http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoFrench.rtf Manifeste Radio (Français en format PDF) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoFrench.pdf Spanish El Manifiesto de Radio (La versión en español está disponible en formato RTF) Haga Click para la opción de lectura o Click derecho y seleccione "Grabar en su computadora u ordenador." http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoSpanish.rtf El Manifiesto de Radio (Versión PDF en Español) http://www.worldradioforum.org/manifesto/RadioManifestoSpanish.pdf Russian The Radio Manifesto (Russian Word Docuument and PDF format) is available at the FYCE web site (Foundation of Youth Culture and Education) http://www.fyce.org The Radio Manifesto is open for further contributions from children's & youth radio groups. If you would like your youth group to contribute to the Manifesto, contact WRF Director Sarah McNeill at smcn at worldradioforum.org . From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 07:29:14 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 05:29:14 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/8dbeadad/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >As far as rural areas are concerned, nobody is going there. I would oppose any license fee there at all. As Baijal has pointed out, defining 'rural coverage' is notoriously difficult. Even AIR's Local Radio Stations, with 6 kW transmitters, cover a considerable rural landscape even though they are situated in smaller cities and towns. If you remember, TRAI has recommended that commercial FM stations should be permitted 50 kW transmitters. And TRAI wants every town with over 1 lakh population to have a commercial FM channel. >I think the TRAI is amenable to the newspaper model. Many of the participants at the meeting seemed to support the basic stand. What exactly is a newspaper model? And how would it work in the context of radio, especially since commercial FM has been prescribed a radically different broadcast model? >If a justification is needed for why we want preferential treatment as compared to commercial radio, it is this: we serve a socially useful purpose. We disseminate the kind of information government often wants and needs disseminated. More importantly, we allow the voices of the poor people to reach back. Forgive me for saying this, but the Government's perception of the potential of CR (and the voices of the poor) is somewhat different. Most of us would remember this quote from a former Secretary, I&B: "As of today we don't think that villagers are equipped to run radio stations. People are unprepared, and it could become a platform to air provocative, political content that doesn't serve any purpose except to divide people. It is fraught with danger." >So, could we please discuss definition? Under what circumstances would one say, this is community radio, or this isn't? How do we define CR in terms of carriage, other than by putting numbers to various technical and commercial parameters? TRAI is the regulator for carriage, not content. Sajan. From arunlists at softhome.net Thu Oct 21 08:02:34 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:32:34 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> References: <20041021052914.28686.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041021113234.385498238.arunlists@softhome.net> we need to meet to stop going round in circles. > As Baijal has pointed out, defining 'rural coverage' is notoriously > difficult. Even AIR's Local Radio Stations, with 6 kW transmitters, cover > a considerable rural landscape even though they are situated in smaller > cities and towns. If you remember, TRAI has recommended that commercial > FM stations should be permitted 50 kW transmitters. And TRAI wants > every town with over 1 lakh population to have a commercial FM channel. One FM channel means nothing. Each community requires different programming. If defining rural is difficult, let us drop the term, say "deprived area" in FM terms, as all those places having less than 25% of the possible number of FM stations. To start with, the whole country is a deprived area, but that might change. What we are saying, that where the spectrum is grossly underutilized, there should be no spectrum charges, nor license fees. We are, after all, providing a public service. > > >I think the TRAI is amenable to the newspaper model. Many of the > participants at the meeting seemed to support the basic stand. > > What exactly is a newspaper model? And how would it work in the context > of radio, especially since commercial FM has been prescribed a > radically different broadcast model? I believe you can register your newspaper at any post office. Why can't we keep it that simple? Just because they have messed up licensing for commercial radio doesn't give them the automatic obligation to mess up community radio licensing as well. > > >If a justification is needed for why we want preferential treatment as > compared to commercial radio, it is this: we serve a socially useful > purpose. We disseminate the kind of information government often wants > and needs disseminated. More importantly, we allow the voices of the poor > people to reach back. > > Forgive me for saying this, but the Government's perception of the > potential of CR (and the voices of the poor) is somewhat different. Most of > us would remember this quote from a former Secretary, I&B: "As of today > we don't think that villagers are equipped to run radio stations. > People are unprepared, and it could become a platform to air provocative, > political content that doesn't serve any purpose except to divide people. > It is fraught with danger." Mr. former secretary should be acqainted with Article 19 of the Constitution (if not sacked). And asked why such subversives are allowed to start newspapers. Why do we have to pay any attention to such crap? I don't believe the TRAI thinks this way, and right now, we are talking to TRAI. > >So, could we please discuss definition? Under what circumstances would > one say, this is community radio, or this isn't? > > How do we define CR in terms of carriage, other than by putting numbers > to various technical and commercial parameters? TRAI is the regulator > for carriage, not content. TRAI regulates carriage, yes, but that is not the issue here. But to give preferential treatment to community radio, TRAI needs to know what a community radio station is. The difference between commercial and community radio is fundamentally in the content. TRAI just wants a working definition to throw applications into two piles. Please take a look at the definition I sent in my earlier post, does it work for you? Arun From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 10:40:35 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 08:40:35 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] advisor for phase-II of FM licensing Message-ID: <20041021084035.14859.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/6b656fce/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Govt plans to appoint advisor for phase II of FM privatisation exchange4media, October 21 The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is planning to appoint an investment banker or a financial advisor to oversee the second phase of FM radio privatisation. The Ministry has decided to ask Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (Becil), the public sector company, to scout for the advisor. Sources said, "The Ministry feels that outside financial consultants would be in a position to evaluate the bids better and enable the Ministry to generate higher revenue. Since these consultants are involved in various financial arrangements of corporates, they are well versed with the tendering process. The idea is to bring in more professionalism." The Government is, however, keen on maintaining the bidding amount at realistic levels as it wants even smaller players to participate in the process. The Government is hopeful of embarking on the second phase of FM privatisation next year, wherein more frequencies could be allotted in the metros and several more cities and towns would be added to the list. Also, the Information Ministry is likely to ask Becil to work on the technical evaluation of the bids. The Government-owned consultancy firm had earlier offered advice on the issue of co-location of towers by the FM radio operators in the metro. Meanwhile, the Government has to firm up its views on the revised norms for the sector. It has more-or-less ruled out the option of switching over from the present licence fee regime to a revenue share arrangement. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, in its recommendations for the second phase of FM radio privatisation, had suggested a flat entry fee and a 4 per cent revenue share. But the huge revenue loss has deterred the Government from going ahead. Source: Business Line From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 13:29:20 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 11:29:20 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] no consensus at TRAI Open House Message-ID: <20041021112920.13655.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/d53e19ed/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- No consensus on community radio norms at Trai open house FINANCIAL EXPRESS Posted online: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 0000 hours IST NEW DELHI: The open house session on community radio on Monday failed to arrive at a consensus on whether there should be separate sets of rules for commercial and non-commercial segments, or if advertisements should be allowed in non-commercial operations. Community radio hopefuls attending the open house, organised by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), could not even define the space for the segment. The only point where there was a consensus was content. Both private FM radio officials and potential community radio representatives agreed that news and current affairs must be permitted across networks. At present, news and current affairs programmes are allowed only on All India Radio (AIR). Even as an expert committee and later Trai recommended news and current affairs programmes for private FM radio, the government is yet to take a decision on the issue. The open house session here on Monday was a follow-up on the consultative paper on community radio, which was issued by Trai in August. According to Trai officials, the recommendations on community radio are likely to be ready sometime next month. Among the issues discussed at the session were definition of community radio, need for separate policies for commercial and non-commercial radio, managing spectrum, independent licensing body, simplification of licensing process, transmitter power and antenna height, funding, advertising, etc. One of the suggestions at the open session was that the concept of licensing should be removed. Also, that clearances to community radio station could be granted by a local body like the district collector, rather than moving from one ministry to another. The fact that AIR is sitting on a lot of frequencies also came up for deliberation. According to Trai chairman Pradip Baijal, the community radio space must be defined so that encroachment is prevented. The only private FM radio representative at the session was from Entertainment Network India Ltd (ENIL). An ENIL official pointed out that those who are paying hefty amounts as licence fee (read private FM) cannot be equated with non-commercial stations. So, there’s no case for community radio stations carrying ads, he said. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 21 13:47:09 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 21 Oct 2004 11:47:09 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <20041021114709.16075.qmail@webmail10.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/5431beec/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- I'm throwing up some possible figures for Community Radio. The Commercial FM figures I've given are those recommended by TRAI for the 2nd Phase of FM Licensing. The Campus Radio figures are from the existing guidelines on Campus/Community Radio. 1. Multiple licenses: a) Community Radio: One license per applicant? b) Commercial FM: 3 licenses per licensee in one center, or 33% of total licenses available, whichever is less. Can hold 25% of total licenses across country. c) Campus Radio: One license per applicant 2. Duration of license: a) Community Radio: 5 years + renewal for 5 years? b) Commercial FM: 10 + renewal for five. c) Campus Radio: 3 years 3. License Fee/One time entry fee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: One time entry fee with revenue share of 4% c) Campus Radio: Nil 4. Spectrum Usage Fee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: as fixed by WPC c) Campus Radio: as fixed by WPC* * Anna Univ pays approximately Rs.19,000 per year 5. Performance Bank Guarantee: a) Community Radio: Nil? b) Commercial FM: 50% of one time entry fee c) Campus Radio: Rs.50,000 6. Penalty for non-operationalising license: a) Community Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year b) Commercial Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year c) Campus Radio: Forfeiture of license if not operationalised in one year 7. Default: a) Community Radio: License to be cancelled if service is closed down for six months. b) Commercial Radio: License to be cancelled if service is closed down for six months. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 8. Frequency Allocation: a) Community Radio: 3 frequencies to be set aside for Campus/CR b) Commercial FM: Maximum number to be released in Metros. At least two frequencies to be offered even in smallest town. c) Campus Radio: See ‘a’ above. 9. Co-location of transmitter: a) Community Radio: Permissible, but not mandatory. b) Commercial FM: Prescribed for commercial FM to reduce carrier separation. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 10. Transmitter power: a) Community Radio: 1 KW (Maximum) b) Commercial FM: 50 KW (Max) – 1 KW (Min) c) Campus Radio: 50 Watts (Max) 11. EHAAT (Effective Height of Antenna above Average Terrain): a) Community Radio: 50 metres (Max)? b) Commercial FM: 75-300 mts (in metros) & 40-150 (remaining cities) c) Campus Radio: 30 metres (Max) 12. Advertisements per programme hour: a) Community Radio: 5 minutes per hour. b) Commercial FM: No restrictions. c) Campus Radio: Not permitted. 13. Cap on revenue from advertisements: a) Community Radio: 50%. (50% cap on revenue from any single source?) b) Commercial FM: No restrictions on ad revenue. c) Campus Radio: N.A. 14. FDI a) Community Radio: Nil b) Commercial FM: Upto 26% c) Campus Radio: Not applicable 15. Time limit for clearances from Govt. Departments: a) Community Radio: 3 months, single window b) Commercial FM: Not prescribed c) Campus Radio: Not prescribed. Sajan. From sreedher at annauniv.edu Thu Oct 21 14:08:22 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:38:22 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From deveshkishore at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:00:05 2004 From: deveshkishore at hotmail.com (devesh kishore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:30:05 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/0434b957/attachment-0001.htm From deveshkishore at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:05:52 2004 From: deveshkishore at hotmail.com (devesh kishore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:35:52 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/43d7c1f5/attachment-0001.htm From puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 21 20:11:38 2004 From: puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in (ganesh puranik) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:11:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <20041021181138.89906.qmail@web8410.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Sreedhar Sir I am a student of Pune University. Our university is going to launch 'Vidya-vahini' campus radio station very soon. There are many students like me who are eagerly waiting for the campus radio station. We believe it will enrich and develop our skills to utilize a medium of mass communication for development. If we would have an opportunity to choose between campus TV and Radio, we will choose radio. One of the major reasons to this is radio's widest reach and utilization in our campus and in nearby areas within a radius of 10 km; where most of the students are residing. Before two years I did a survey of radio utilization by students in our university campus. I found that 78% hostel rooms were consist of at least one radio set and approximately 4 students using each radio sets regularly. On the other hand there were only 4 % students who were using public TV sets regularly. In our university campus of more than 400 acres there are 17 different hostels for boys and girls. So if we would have an opportunity to choose between the two types of Community Media then we will definitely prefer Radio because of its widest reach for our students community. I think we should not divide campus radio from the community radio. Both are same, becasue both have same basic purpose i.e. Development of a Community. I hope and pray that every Indian university will have a campus radio station very soon.........Amen ! Btw, After reading your mail I am inspired to do the same study again, which I did two years before, thanks ! Regards, Ganesh " Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai" wrote: dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/fcc8d2c8/attachment-0001.htm From puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 21 20:14:25 2004 From: puranik_ganesh at yahoo.co.in (ganesh puranik) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:14:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [cr-india] (CR = Campus Radio) = Community Development In-Reply-To: <200410211208.i9LC8MhE017665@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <20041021181425.45960.qmail@web8405.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Sreedhar Sir I am a student of Pune University. Our university is going to launch 'Vidya-vahini' campus radio station very soon. There are many students like me who are eagerly waiting for the campus radio station. We believe it will enrich and develop our skills to utilize a medium of mass communication for development. If we would have an opportunity to choose between campus TV and Radio, we will choose radio. One of the major reasons to this is radio's widest reach and utilization in our campus and in nearby areas within a radius of 10 km; where most of the students are residing. Before two years I did a survey of radio utilization by students in our university campus. I found that 78% hostel rooms were consist of at least one radio set and approximately 4 students using each radio sets regularly. On the other hand there were only 4 % students who were using public TV sets regularly. In our university campus of more than 400 acres there are 17 different hostels for boys and girls. So if we would have an opportunity to choose between the two types of Community Media then we will definitely prefer Radio because of its widest reach for our students community. I think we should not divide campus radio from the community radio. Both are same; because both have same basic purpose i.e. Development of a Community. I hope and pray that every Indian university will have a campus radio station very soon.........Amen! Btw, After reading your mail I am inspired to do the same study again, which I did two years before, thanks! Regards, Ganesh " Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai" wrote: dear sajan dont for heaven sake bring campus radio concept in india,. no one really wants campus radios. they may want campus tvs and not radios. we are the only campus to have the radio. let us graduate and migrate to community radio regards sreeder > This is a multipart mime message > > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041021/7f6c43bf/attachment-0001.htm From arunlists at softhome.net Fri Oct 22 09:11:31 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:41:31 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> References: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. > 1.     License fee none > 2.     Spectrum Usage Fee none > 3.     Bank Guarantee none > 4.     Transmitter power 100W, for more, you have to apply specially. > 5.     Antenna height As allowed by local building laws > 6.     Permissible coverage area of CR station To be determined by the applicant > 7.     Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 10 minutes > 8.     Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station Not more than 25% of total revenue > 9.     Number of licenses per CR licensee One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum > 10.     Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > stations per location 3 > 11.     Period of license / period of extension same as commercial > 12.     Time limit for clearances 3 months > 13.     Period for preserving audio logs Indefinite -- use CDs. Archiving done at central facility. As far as definition is concerned, I'm happy with http://www.rabe.ch/kulturradio/kulturradio_eng.html, but do take a look at 3 below, which may become the subject of misinterpretation -- maybe we should expressly allow NGOs:    Definition of a community radio    (in accordance with www.amrac.org)    Community radios ...    1. ... promote the right to communication and facilitate the freedom of speech, encourage creative and diverse statements and contribute to a democratic process and a pluralistic society.    2. ... provide education and production possibilities and are responsible for the transmission. They encourage local creative talents, cultivate local traditions and broadcast an entertaining, educational and development promoting programme for its listeners.    3. ... secure the ownership of the radio in a way, that it is owned by local representatives of a visible community or an interest community.    4. ... are editorially independent of governments, trade, religious institutions and political parties in the compilation of their radio programme.    5. ... make sure that marginalised groups and minorities have access to the radio and secure as well as promote cultural and linguistic diversity.    6. ... make sure that the listeners receive information on the base of multiple sources and points of view and allow space for opposing points of view from each person or organisation.    7. ... are organisations, which work on a non-profit basis in order to maintain their independency and are financed by a multitude of donors.    8. ... recognise and respect voluntary work and acknowledge the right of paid work for organisational matters and for the elaboration of working structures, which are beneficial for all people involved.    9. ... elaborate management forms, programme structures and working conditions, which rule out any discrimination and are accessible to all people involved, employees and voluntary helpers alike.    10. ... maintain communication with other community radios in order to promote and raise understanding on peace questions, tolerance, democracy and development. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Sat Oct 23 09:29:33 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 23 Oct 2004 07:29:33 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] radio's forgotten friends Message-ID: <20041023072933.23799.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041023/bf58b0e7/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- RADIO'S FORGOTTEN FRIENDS... SOME THOUGHTS AT 50 by Shubhranshu Choudhary -------- NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: No one noticed but our transistor turned 50 today. Shall we say Happy Birth Day ? Taking the debate further which was started by Ershad and Fred... -------- New Delhi, 18 Oct 2004.Today I want to pay my tributes to that small instrument which made such a huge impact on my life when I was growing up in a small sleepy town in the middle of hills and jungles in Central tribal India. It was my friend, my teacher, my university,and my window to the rest of the world- my transistor- which completes its journey of 50 years today. It was the era before the arrival of TV, newspapers took 2 days to reach remote areas, and transistor was the source of information and entertainment. 18th October 1954 when TI-1 was first introduced, as transistor was called at that time; it costed more than $50, quite a huge sum for that period. It was a revolution for the younger generation in America. Whereas the Radio was part of the installed furniture,controlled by the parents at home , the transistor gave the freedom to choose your favourite programme. It was also when the Rock n Roll arrived. The two clicked together so well- the rebellion of the sixties was reflected in the popularity of these little machines. Transistor has been on roll since then. Very soon Japanese models took over the first American ones and that remains the rule so far. Prices today for a transistor have come down to less than $1 and has made itself affordable for the poor. Moving ahead from diode and triode, the technology of transistor was a big step forward. We see its usage even today in TV and computers which uses the transistor technology in various forms. Many have graduated from transitor to television to broadband & computers now. But for a huge majority transistor remains a trusted ally even after 50 years. Be it be a rikshaw puller in Delhi or a farmer in remote corner of India, the one thing they have in common apart from being poor is a transistor. If you leave last couple of decades ours has been a story of transistor radios. I remember visiting a market called BBC Bazar in Bangladesh. It came by that name in a very interesting way- It was the year 1971, the war of liberation was on and the only transistor in the locality was available in a hamlet in this remote area half a day from capital Dhaka. The whole population converged to listen to the evening news which turned a small hamlet into a full fledged market named after the most popular radio station at that time. India has 104 million transistor homes, more than double than the reach of TV. And radio transmissions are available to 98.5% of the population. According to Planning Commission statistics more than half of Indian houses do not have any electricity connection. With these kind of figures does one need to emphasise the importance of transistor for a country like India ? Ten years back, the Indian supreme court gave an interesting ruling. This judgement strongly critiqued the long-held government monopoly over broadcasting in this country. In early 1995, the court declared the airwaves as public property, to be utilized for promoting public good and ventilating plurality of views, opinions and ideas. (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1236). In view of this, the judges said it was essential that the Indian Parliament "steps in soon to fill the void by enacting a law or laws, as the case may be, governing the broadcast media, i.e. both radio and television". Parliament has stepped in to relax laws to liberate television but many wonder why Governement is so afraid to free Radio. Radio still remains a powerful tool for the rulers to spread "their" message. But it is still a one way traffic where people have no control on what they listen. Even our tiny neighbours like Nepal and Sri Lanka have gone forward to legalise community radio stations where people talk to each other rather than being talked at all the time. It was not surprising that there were no celebrations planned for a technology which has given us so much and contains huge potential to democratise our polity. This probably tells about the time and place we live in. --------- This article was forwarded by Frederick Noronha. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 23 14:37:34 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:07:34 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> References: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> <20041022124131.795616571.arunlists@softhome.net> Message-ID: I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send >a response to TRAI.. > > 5. Antenna height >As allowed by local building laws SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station >To be determined by the applicant >> 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming >10 minutes Maximum. > > 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station >Not more than 25% of total revenue >> 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee >One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major wireless using countries. > > 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > > stations per location >3 Clarification: this should be the reserved frequencies; if there are more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, subject to availability of spectrum. As far as the TRAI advisor's (who commented about an 'international norm' of 800 KHz separation between stations as justification of the extraordinary low number of allocations for Mumbai and Delhi - 11 each), here is a comment from Ken Donow of the IBB (the second paragraph gives the credentials of the IBB, which were also doubted by the Advisor, when called specifically by the TRAI member for clarification. His explanation was "Well, some of those stations operate only in the underground, so that the subways can get radio reception"): At 12:20 PM -0400 10/3/02, Kenneth Donow wrote: >Bamako, Mali -- a large city in the context of Mali, but one of only >moderate size if placed against Indian counterparts -- supports 35 radio >stations, most of which are FM. New York City -- the largest media >market in the US, but smaller than New Delhi and Mumbai -- supports 72 >radio stations..... > >The International Broadcasting Bureau is the management organization >that operates most of US International Broadcasting. That would include >the Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Sawa -- Vickram From sreedher at annauniv.edu Sun Oct 24 14:08:15 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:38:15 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> The culprit today is the Department of Telecommunications and WPC. They are the one who are not releasing the frequency or delay SACFA indefinitely to the users. May be the commercial operators are working behind. sreedher > I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a > couple of minor additions )interleaved below): > > At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: > >My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send > >a response to TRAI.. > > > 5. Antenna height > >As allowed by local building laws > > SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden > areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the > combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without > causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not > be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in > the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified > upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to > monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > > > > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station > >To be determined by the applicant > >> 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming > >10 minutes > > Maximum. > > > > 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station > >Not more than 25% of total revenue > >> 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee > >One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum > > Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the > technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major > wireless using countries. > > > > 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR > > > stations per location > >3 > > Clarification: this should be the reserved frequencies; if there are > more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, > subject to availability of spectrum. > > As far as the TRAI advisor's (who commented about an 'international > norm' of 800 KHz separation between stations as justification of the > extraordinary low number of allocations for Mumbai and Delhi - 11 > each), here is a comment from Ken Donow of the IBB (the second > paragraph gives the credentials of the IBB, which were also doubted > by the Advisor, when called specifically by the TRAI member for > clarification. His explanation was "Well, some of those stations > operate only in the underground, so that the subways can get radio > reception"): > > At 12:20 PM -0400 10/3/02, Kenneth Donow wrote: > >Bamako, Mali -- a large city in the context of Mali, but one of only > >moderate size if placed against Indian counterparts -- supports 35 radio > >stations, most of which are FM. New York City -- the largest media > >market in the US, but smaller than New Delhi and Mumbai -- supports 72 > >radio stations..... > > > >The International Broadcasting Bureau is the management organization > >that operates most of US International Broadcasting. That would include > >the Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Sawa > > > -- > Vickram > _______________________________________________ > cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From arunlists at softhome.net Sun Oct 24 16:17:17 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:17 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> References: <200410241208.i9OC8F1W006306@ns.annauniv.edu> Message-ID: <41A4985B.3010705@softhome.net> Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai wrote: >The culprit today is the Department of Telecommunications and WPC. They >are the one who are not releasing the frequency or delay SACFA >indefinitely to the users. May be the commercial operators are working >behind. sreedher > > Your frank comments are highly appreciated, Dr. Sreedhar. May we also have the benefit of your esperience, in the form of suggestions on what we should write to TRAI with regard to the definition of community radio, spectrum fees, etc. Arun From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 25 15:09:15 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 25 Oct 2004 13:09:15 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] media policy on hold Message-ID: <20041025130915.5020.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041025/844592c8/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- Norms for cable TV, news channels, FM radio, DTH and print media on hold October 25, 04, exchange4media The list of pending issues in the media sector is growing. Whether it is cable television, direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting, radio or print media, policy decisions are awaited all across these segments. While decisions got delayed in the first part of the year because of the change in government, subsequent bureaucratic changes in the information and broadcasting ministry kept things in a limbo. A new set of bureaucrats is in the process of taking charge in the ministry. In the area of cable television, the government is examining the proposals submitted by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on implementation of conditional access system (CAS). Trai had given three options of rolling out CAS. But, the government is taking time on CAS, because it had burnt its fingers on the issue last year, said a source in the I&B ministry. Again in television, a verdict is hanging on investment by foreign institutional investors (FIIs) in news TV channels. Currently, FIIs are not allowed to invest in news channels, but there are indications that the norms may be liberalised. Some news channels, which have FII funds, have been permitted to uplink from India till a new law comes into force. The radio sector too is awaiting a policy for the second phase of private FM. Again, Trai has made its recommendations, but the government is yet to take a decision on the new norms for FM-II. In the first phase of FM privatisation, it was a licence fee regime, which was resisted by the players. Even as Trai suggested a shift from the licence fee regime to a revenue-sharing era, indications are that a middle path may be adopted. In the case of community radio, Trai is still consulting with industry players. Recommendations are expected sometime in November, Trai officials said. Satellite radio is another area that the regulator is looking at. In direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting, the Tata-Star application has been pending with the government for several months now. Also, on the DTH policy side, there may be changes. Recently Trai gave its recommendations on mandatory sharing of channels on the DTH platform, but the government is yet to take a call on the issue. If the regulator’s suggestion is accepted, all broadcasters will have to share their channels across cable and DTH platforms. So far, broadcasters such as Star and Sony have refused to provide their channels to the Zee group’s DTH platform—Dish TV. Print media is no different. Changes are expected here too. The Cabinet, last month, decided to form a group of ministers (GoM) to take a comprehensive look into the print media sector. The GoM is yet to be formed. From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 25 15:35:10 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 25 Oct 2004 13:35:10 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041025/506485fd/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. >> > 5. Antenna height >>As allowed by local building laws SACFA has given fairly extensive guidelines on siting procedure for wireless stations on their website (www.dotindia.com/wpcc/spectrum-home.htm). Apparently, local building laws apply (and mast height clearance is exempted from SACFA clearance) only if the mast and antenna are installed on a rooftop and their height is less than 3 metres (see below). Stand alone transmitter towers are covered by other norms. And any radio station with a 100+ watt transmitter comes under the 'Full Siting Category', which sounds quite dire. Sajan. SACFA CLEARANCES ---------------- SACFA clearances are issued after getting 'no objection' from various SACFA members who have to carry out detailed technical evaluation including field surveys, etc. at times they have to obtain evaluations from their field units. The technical evaluation is done primarily for- a) Aviation hazards. b) Obstruction to line of site of existing/planned networks c) Interference (Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI)/Electro Magnetic Compatibility (EMC)) to existing and proposed networks. CATEGORIES OF SITES FOR WIRELESS STATIONS: Mast Height Category: Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: Those fixed wireless stations whose mast/tower height do not exceed 30 meters above ground level and are operating in certain frequency bands with limited output power as given below are covered under this category: (a) All HF stations with power output of 125 watts or less. (b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output of 50 watts or less except broadcast stations. (ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with output power up to 25 watts except broadcast stations. (c) Broadcasting stations in the band 30 - 230 MHz with an output power output up to 100 watts. (d) All VHF/ UHF stations below 608 MHz with a power output of 10 watts or less. # Exemption from Mast Height Clearance: Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: Those mast height cases which satisfy the following conditions are exempted from mast height clearance:- (i) Antenna mast should be installed on the rooftop of the building. (ii) The height of mast including antenna to be installed on the rooftop should not be more than 3 meters. The site should be at least 3 KM away from the nearest airport. # Full Siting Category: The following fixed stations are covered under the full siting category: (a) All HF stations with power output more than 125 watts. (b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output more 50 watts. (ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with power output more than 25 watts. (c) Broadcasting stations in the frequency band 30-230 MHz with power output more than 100 watts. (d) All UHF stations with power output more than 10 watts ----------------------- On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly send a response to TRAI.. >> > 5. Antenna height >>As allowed by local building laws >SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. > >> > 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station >>To be determined by the applicant From vvcrishna at softhome.net Tue Oct 26 06:57:49 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:27:49 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> References: <20041025133510.2268.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Sajan. Now let's look at their brief, and the reality. This is a pretty long mail, the first part being a discussion of the SACFA guidelines, the middle part specific suggestions for inclusion in a recommendation paper for TRAI, and the last being a recompiled list of recommendations incorporating all these. I have put several line spaces to separate these three parts, to make it easier to scroll down. When commenting please only copy the relevant portion and not the whole mail. Both Arun and I, among others, have advocated over the years that it should not be the role of the government to adjudicate between different technologies, but only with their application. Unfortunately the trend to omniscience continues, with TRAI mandated to rule on carriage instead of content, and in this case, specifically for FM, rather than public service. In fact, on this list and at the various Open Houses we all have more or less accepted that the broadcast code used by AIR is good enough to continue for all. However, the real threat to use of the Code is the technical obfuscation and cumbersome procedures adopted for no good purpose. Although we do not believe that this process is the most effective way to go about things, we do not refuse to participate, rather we hope that our inputs will add value to the extent possible, in generation of good policy. At 1:35 PM +0000 10/25/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >SACFA has given fairly extensive guidelines on siting procedure for >wireless stations on their website >(www.dotindia.com/wpcc/spectrum-home.htm). Apparently, local >building laws apply (and mast height clearance is exempted from >SACFA clearance) only if the mast and antenna are installed on a >rooftop and their height is less than 3 metres (see below). Exactly. They already have some kind of guideline that was clearly intended to ease their work, but which seems to have been, in the typical bureaucratic way, been expanded to include everything but the kitchen sink - and even that, if it is over 3 meters high. Easier work ends up taking two years and more to clear a simple matter like an application to broadcast low power FM. There must be a better way. >Stand alone transmitter towers are covered by other norms. And any >radio station with a 100+ watt transmitter comes under the 'Full >Siting Category', which sounds quite dire. >..... >The technical evaluation is done primarily for- > >a) Aviation hazards. >b) Obstruction to line of site of existing/planned networks >c) Interference (Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI)/Electro >Magnetic Compatibility (EMC)) to existing and proposed networks. a) Aviation hazards are covered, please note, in a manner that is surely inadequate by today's aviation norms. I would like to know what kind of commercial jets normally flies off short runways? 3 km is the runway length alone, for most large bodied commercial jet aircraft, the type used in India, and for practically all land-based fighter aircraft. Surely they have the right to expect interference-free communications for more than that length after take-off? My point being that there is a case to believe that the departments are not concerned with effective governance, but only in status quo and maintenance of power. If the techies within SACFA (would this be the civil aviation ministry experts?) know how to avoid interference for low flying aircraft, and conversely, how to use low power radio signals to mess up communications for low flying aircraft, especially in landing and take-off, this ought to be public knowledge, to avoid mishap in the future. Only terrorists and governments hoard information. b) Existing/planned networks! And who on earth do they think is doing the planning? This sounds like a perfect Catch-22. The same reaction hit me when I looked at the next point, which refers to proposed networks, without any hint of when such networks are expected to be implemented. Still, this is in a sense nitpicking, and if one could be lucky enough to find non-venal or dedicated officers filling the steering seats in SACFA, the guidelines should not, theoretically, pose a hindrance to speedy clearance of new applications. Since this is not a given, with the current level of dedication obvious among government officers (evidenced by the extraordinary rapidity with which last year's applications have been disposed), there is no harm in asking TRAI to make things a bit clearer, either by sticking to my original suggestion, or by appointing a special low-power wireless frequency clearance committee that overrides SACFA's brief for the specified FM band. I have discussed these two scenarios once again below, plus added a suggestion for conflict resolution on EMI/EMC interference. ># Exemption from Mast Height Clearance: >Sites for HF/VHF/UHF: >Those mast height cases which satisfy the following conditions are >exempted from mast height clearance:- >(i) Antenna mast should be installed on the rooftop of the building. >(ii) The height of mast including antenna to be installed on the >rooftop should not be more than 3 meters. >The site should be at least 3 KM away from the nearest airport. If you have seen photos of cities like Toronto and Stuttgart, one very prominent feature of the skyline is the TV tower, a commercial building with a large mast on top. This allows the offices, studios and antennae of the enterprise to be conveniently situated in one building. Unfortunately, we don't have this luxury in any of our cities, and negotiating a deal with an existing building owner could be as inconvenient or just plain bad business sense (example: imagine a special arrangement with a frequency clearance officer for say, one year's operations only, next year come back and deal again). ># Full Siting Category: > >The following fixed stations are covered under the full siting category: > >(a) All HF stations with power output more than 125 watts. > >(b) (i) All VHF stations below 174 MHz with power output >more 50 watts. Amazing. Can anyone imagine why SACFA was given this life-and-death control in the first place? 50 watts! But look at (c) below, and it is clear that section b) is *not intended* to cover FM broadcasting stations. Whether or not the 50 watt categorisation is justified, it does not affect those interested in low power FM broadcasting. It does however, impact on the liberalisation of AM (medium wave) broadcasting. >(ii) All VHF stations in the frequency range 174-230 MHz with >power output more than 25 watts. >(c) Broadcasting stations in the frequency band 30-230 MHz with >power output more than 100 watts. So it is only FM broadcasting stations with power above 100 watts that get covered by the "full siting category" nutcracker. I do not understand why low power AM is getting stepmotherly treatment. While the medium does not guarantee noise-free audio to the receiver, it can work better for hilly areas, which is many important parts of the country. I am puzzled by the lack of interest in speedy disposal of applications for medium wave broadcasting as well as FM. I think discussions on this list have not paid sufficient attention to establishing community-focused public service radio in areas where FM is not the most suitable choice. >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 Vickram Crishna wrote : >>I endorse the substance of Arun's recommendations, but suggest a >>couple of minor additions )interleaved below): >>At 12:41 PM +0530 10/22/04, Arun Mehta wrote: >>>My $0.02 -- figures I could live with -- so that we can quickly >>>send a response to TRAI.. >>> > 5. Antenna height >>>As allowed by local building laws > > >SACFA to be directed to release a list of forbidden >areas/frequencies, so that applicants may self-determine the >combination of 5 (antenna height) and 6 (reach) accordingly, without >causing nuisance to any existing user. In case the user (who need >not be named) is not actually using equipment currently to broadcast >in the designated band (87.5-108 MHz) such areas should be >de-notified upon receipt of information. TRAI may appoint an >independent body to monitor such usage of the broadcast bandwidth. I hadn't spotted the detailed SACFA guidelines before putting out this suggestion, and now feel that it wasn't specific enough to deal with the threat of stiflement, with which we are already familiar. I therefore suggest that TRAI adopt a clear policy for both low power medium wave and FM broadcasting, opening up - liberalising licensing - of which will create an environment for the production of better content than we currently experience, given the expensive luxury of stations that constitute the commercial FM bands. This policy may encompass Arun's suggestions just as posted to this list, but with the following modifications (numbering as per Arun's original - I have, right at the very end, compiled a complete list for ease of reference): 5. Antenna height: Use of antennae for medium wave or FM transmitters under 100 watts will be allowed at heights up to 3 meters from the topmost point of existing buildings and natural prominences, subject to the site being at least 3 km from the runway direction within 45 degrees to either side, for both ends of the runway. The construction of the mast should be in conformance with local building laws, wherever applicable. Explanation: Aircraft communications that can be affected by terrestrial broadcasting are only relevant in line with the runway. An aircraft that is approaching a runway over 45 degrees from its direction is obviously not intending to land, and is also unlikely to be low enough that interference with communications could even happen in the first place. Note: I don't know who must have dreamed up the 3 meter restriction, but at least one thing is reasonably clear: such a short mast is not likely to be a hazard to persons in the vicinity, and even a very poorly trained mason or ironworker ought to be able to erect such a tower competently and inexpensively. In rural areas, expect incompetency: the lack of training and skills is closely linked to the lack of education and opportunity. This is in fact why the need for effective communication is urgently felt. Although optimal reach is as important in rural areas as in urban, and in fact even more so, given the relative paucity of financial resources for development, a rule that limits access to simplified antenna placement to buildings only is discriminatory: tall trees, rocks and hills must also be allowed. Usage restrictions of all kinds need to be eased or lifted entirely. Antenna masts should not be defined as 'constructions', or else forest dwellers will be denied use of their own natural resources. 6. Permissible reach/coverage: As determined by the applicant, taking care not to interfere with broadcasting/communications from existing wireless networks. In case a new wireless network is already under implementation, care should be taken by the newer station to avoid interference with the older applicant. Such a condition will only apply for eighteen months after start of construction. Explanation: Low power broadcasting has been determined to be irrelevant to high power broadcast signalling quality at the recipient side. The reference is the Mitre study, carried out independently but taken on board by the US FCC, in determining conditions for future licensing of low power wireless broadcasting in the USA. This means that if the new station under implementation is a high power station, then the fresh applicant will have to take care not to interfere when the station is ready. However, it is not a blanket veto handed over to potentially dog-in-the-manger station owners, it will be time limited to eighteen months from the start of construction of the station. If they delay construction or are otherwise delayed in beginning operations, they should not forever enjoy early bird benefits. 14. Conflicts: The District Collector should carry the role of ombudsman in local interference conflicts, in case any such arise. If the conflict cannot be resolved through technical adjustment of existing installations, the Collector may be empowered to expedite the assistance of technical experts from the relevant ministry to recommend a solution. Explanation: With SACFA and WPC out of the picture, it is important to replace them with a more effective local governmental mechanism. Complete list of recommendations: 1. License fee none 2. Spectrum Usage Fee none 3. Bank Guarantee none 4. Transmitter power 100W, for more, you have to apply specially. 5. Antenna height Use of antennae for medium wave or FM transmitters under 100 watts will be allowed at heights up to 3 meters from the topmost point of existing buildings and natural prominences, subject to the site being at least 3 km from the runway direction within 45 degrees to either side, for both ends of the runway. The construction of the mast should be in conformance with local building laws, wherever applicable. 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station To be determined by the applicant, taking care not to interfere with broadcasting/communications from existing wireless networks. In case a new wireless network is already under implementation, care should be taken by the newer station to avoid interference with the older applicant. Such a condition will only apply for eighteen months after start of construction. 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming Ten minutes maximum 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station Not more than 25% of total revenue 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee One per coverage area, more subject to availability of spectrum. Spectrum availability to be publicised, against a review of the technical specifications for FM broadcasting prevalent in major wireless user countries. 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR /Maximum number of CR stations per location Three reserved frequencies; if there are more applicants in a given region this number may be expanded, subject to availability of spectrum. The District Collector will be the Competent Authority for allocation of reserved frequencies. 11. Period of license / period of extension Same as commercial 12. Time limit for clearances 3 months 13. Period for preserving audio logs Indefinite. Archiving done at central facility created for this purpose. Use CDs, and specify compliance with a suitably open format (it is inefficient to define the actual format to be used by each station, as long as data is exchange-compliant). 14. Conflicts The District Collector should carry the role of ombudsman in local EMI/EMC interference conflicts, in case any such arise. If the conflict cannot be resolved through technical adjustment of existing installations, the Collector may be empowered to expedite the assistance of technical experts from the relevant ministry to recommend a solution. -- Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Tue Oct 26 07:10:24 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:40:24 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Fwd: [creative-radio] Internews releases survey of radio signals in Afghanistan Message-ID: >----------------------- >Internews releases survey of radio signals in Afghanistan >-------------------------------------------- >Internews has released a second survey of radio signals in >Afghanistan in an effort to better understand the role of >independent radio in the country. > >The survey, available online at >http://www.internews.org/regions/afghanistan/nationalsurvey20040930.htm, >is based on more than 520 "data points" collected between >May and July 2004. A team of three technicians traveled >the country and measured signal strengths, recording their >locations using a Global Positioning System (GPS). > >Using findings from the first survey released in April 2004, >Internews is now able to project "radio plurality indexes," >which estimate the number of stations accessible by any individual >in a given region. The survey found that listeners in Kabul have >access to more than seven stations, but the rural majority of the >country can only access an average of 2.3 signals. Can we expect a similar study from TRAI, WPC, SACFA, I&B, or any other department that is supposed to be responsible? Is the Government of India officially complacent about the fact that the rural listener in our war shattered neighbor country now has better access to information than the peaceful Indian citizen, 56 years after wresting independence from colonial rulers? Where have the earnings from the sale of licenses for commercial broadcasting been spent? -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 09:50:37 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:50:37 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <20041022090537.22121.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01c4bb30$8117ee30$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, others: My worry is this. And I say this with the greatest of respect for the discourse that has gone on for a while, of which I have been a part of. All the talk about CR in the development sector and in public engagements over the past few years has perhaps caused the wrong emphasis in the policy making process itself. Instead of seriously considering rule-making for a general purpose commercial and non-commercial license regime FIRST, we find ourselves on a road -- Govt, TRAI, and us, together, oddly enough -- where we're perhaps uncessarily trying to figure how to 'legislate community radio'. I realize that the business of how to make a distinction between CR and commercial-radio, demarcation, encroachment is a serious one, but I want to take a step back. At the risk of boring people to death, ('stuck record' to use Arun's language), I invite people to look at one scenario that wll not be unfamiliar to some. I'm going to keep this short to just layout the rest quickly. Let's say our government (this a strawman hope for now) rolls out licensing policy for FM-radio which only has two broad categories of licenses: a) Commercial FM b) Non-commercial educational FM (NC) (or NCE as they call it in the US). Commercial-FM stations would be viable by advertising and program sponsorship. In return they are allowed to openly promote the good and services of the advertisers/sponsors, in their AD spots. Non-commercial FM stations would be viable by contributions from listeners, donations and grants from other non-commercial organizations, government-funding, and underwriting contributions from for-profit entities. In the last case, NC stations are not allowed to 'promote' the goods and services of the underwriter, but they may acknowledge the name of the underwriter on the air. (the principle). Beyond this, of course, a whole host of detailed rules and regulations may be worked out to close loopholes, address the nuances, etc. Underwriting money in the hands of NC stations for example may be exempted from taxes, but they may also become subject to revenue share if the Courts think so, etc. The Courts may also think otherwise and find the exemptions valid. But let's say whereever the chips fall, they fall and the law will take its course. These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the license. For e.g. NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. If the distinction is made this way, the CR will typically be an outcome/application of a non-commercial radio license, where the organization that got the license operates it a certain way. Likewise with public broadcasting. (A well funded NGO/foundation could setup and operate a public affairs broadcaster for an entire city for example. ERP for a PSB will likely be higher than ERP for a CR station, but not necessarily so). The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself 'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is observed. This then leads to different questions: Should the government then legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our suspicions/assertions about what might not. I realize that. Still, even for this kind of broad policy, the distinction/demarcation problem needs to be addressed; i.e. recommendations will need to go to TRAI for a) Which entities can get an NC license; can a pvt company get and operate an NC license for example, as long as it follows the NC rules? b) Whether certain fees for NC licenses must be zero or reduced, or whether certain fees must be made proportional to tranmission power or whatever, etc. This needs to be sifted through to come up with a generally sensible set of recommendations. But my point is this: At the NC+C level, we've already brought this down to a relatively simpler exercise. We don't have worry about how to shoehorn the 'CR' factor into policy distinctions. As a result, CR, its definitions, representative criteria, validating all that, etc, need not take prominence here. However, there is still room for the government to layout a special sub-policy under the NC-licensing scheme for CR. Some might prefer that. But I would argue as follows. Historically, we've seen that when govts (in India in particular) get into vertical policy making (ie regulating all tiers of a service), there is the risk of restricting more and enabling less. Like it or not, we've developed a culture of government that simply drives creative people out of the system. It may just be better to just let an well nailed baseline NC policy roll out and see how many CR applications really happen first. My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so. But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. To develop such a sub-policy, the question what CR definitions would work for the government, how would the government look for representativeness etc, become more significant. -Subbu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041026/94511674/attachment-0001.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:04:59 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:04:59 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, others: My worry is this. And I say this with the greatest of respect for the discourse that has gone on for a while, of which I have been a part of. All the talk about CR in the development sector and in public engagements over the past few years has perhaps caused the wrong emphasis in the policy making process itself. Instead of seriously considering rule-making for a general purpose commercial and non-commercial license regime FIRST, we find ourselves on a road -- Govt, TRAI, and us, together, oddly enough -- where we're perhaps uncessarily trying to figure how to 'legislate community radio'. I realize that the business of how to make a distinction between CR and commercial-radio, demarcation, encroachment is a serious one, but I want to take a step back. At the risk of boring people to death, ('stuck record' to use Arun's language), I invite people to look at one scenario that wll not be unfamiliar to some. I'm going to keep this short to just layout the rest quickly. Let's say our government (this a strawman hope for now) rolls out licensing policy for FM-radio which only has two broad categories of licenses: a) Commercial FM b) Non-commercial educational FM (NC) (or NCE as they call it in the US). Commercial-FM stations would be viable by advertising and program sponsorship. In return they are allowed to openly promote the good and services of the advertisers/sponsors, in their AD spots. Non-commercial FM stations would be viable by contributions from listeners, donations and grants from other non-commercial organizations, government-funding, and underwriting contributions from for-profit entities. In the last case, NC stations are not allowed to 'promote' the goods and services of the underwriter, but they may acknowledge the name of the underwriter on the air. (the principle). Beyond this, of course, a whole host of detailed rules and regulations may be worked out to close loopholes, address the nuances, etc. Underwriting money in the hands of NC stations for example may be exempted from taxes, but they may also become subject to revenue share if the Courts think so, etc. The Courts may also think otherwise and find the exemptions valid. But let's say whereever the chips fall, they fall and the law will take its course. These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the license. For e.g. NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. If the distinction is made this way, the CR will typically be an outcome/application of a non-commercial radio license, where the organization that got the license operates it a certain way. Likewise with public broadcasting. (A well funded NGO/foundation could setup and operate a public affairs broadcaster for an entire city for example. ERP for a PSB will likely be higher than ERP for a CR station, but not necessarily so). The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself 'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is observed. This then leads to different questions: Should the government then legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our suspicions/assertions about what might not. I realize that. Still, even for this kind of broad policy, the distinction/demarcation problem needs to be addressed; i.e. recommendations will need to go to TRAI for a) Which entities can get an NC license; can a pvt company get and operate an NC license for example, as long as it follows the NC rules? b) Whether certain fees for NC licenses must be zero or reduced, or whether certain fees must be made proportional to tranmission power or whatever, etc. This needs to be sifted through to come up with a generally sensible set of recommendations. But my point is this: At the NC+C level, we've already brought this down to a relatively simpler exercise. We don't have worry about how to shoehorn the 'CR' factor into policy distinctions. As a result, CR, its definitions, representative criteria, validating all that, etc, need not take prominence here. However, there is still room for the government to layout a special sub-policy under the NC-licensing scheme for CR. Some might prefer that. But I would argue as follows. Historically, we've seen that when govts (in India in particular) get into vertical policy making (ie regulating all tiers of a service), there is the risk of restricting more and enabling less. Like it or not, we've developed a culture of government that simply drives creative people out of the system. It may just be better to just let an well nailed baseline NC policy roll out and see how many CR applications really happen first. My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so. But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. To develop such a sub-policy, the question what CR definitions would work for the government, how would the government look for representativeness etc, become more significant. -Subbu From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 27 14:14:38 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 27 Oct 2004 12:14:38 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures Message-ID: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041027/dc59028b/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >Let's say our government ...rolls out >licensing policy for FM-radio >which only has two broad categories of >licenses: a) Commercial FM b) >Non-commercial educational FM (NC) You have a very valid point there. I think we are tying ourselves in semantic knots trying to define radio in terms of Commercial, Community, Campus, Niche, so on and so forth. (The Amit Mitra committee came up with 'non-commercial and niche channels', more of which anon). Placing radio in two broad categories - commercial and non-commercial - would simplify things considerably and would be more meaningful. Any 'sub-category' can be defined in terms of content, but we would have to define these two broad categories in terms of carriage also. >These two categories above could lead to several 'applications' of the >license. For e.g. >NC: Community radio; independent public broadcasting; >campus/educational.institution radio; religious/cultural channels; etc. >Commerical: News and music; music only; niche music only; news, music & >some public affairs programming; religion/cultural programs. This is where we move into the realm of content, and into Ministry of I&B territory. >The key point above is that government does not decide which licensee >airs what kind of programming. Govt sets the ground rules on what a NC >can do for viability and cannot, and likewise for a C broadcaster. >Content is upto them as long as it is within broadcast code. I think TRAI could live with this formulation, but the I&B Ministry - and most certainly the commercial operators - would have much to say about letting non-commercial operators decide their own programme content. From what I know about govt. policy making, we may have to settle for some mystic proportion like "70% developmental programmes and not more than 30% entertainment programmes". Would be very difficult to enforce, of course, but that's the way it is. >The sarkari question is here is this: What if a station calls itself >'CR' is not really one? But the listening community can also make that >decision, and the government could withdraw to ensure that the law is >observed. Precisely. And just for the record, there isn't a great deal the govt. can do if a station calls itself 'CR' and is not really one. None of the private FM channels are supposed to broadcast news. All of them do, under various guises, and the govt. hasn't done much about that either. And the listening community may well be happy to listen to film songs. >This then leads to different questions: Should the government then >legislate for CR directly or enable it thru a broader licensing system? >The answer to this question depends on where each of us are coming from, >our experiences, our sense of what might work in India, and our >suspicions/assertions about what might not. Legislating for each kind of radio separately doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? For instance, Arun Mehta introduced the concept of a private 'public service broadcaster', which makes perfect sense actually. And what about all those 'niche' channels and 'non-commercial channels' broadcasting cultural programmes that were proposed by the Mitra committee? A broader licensing system would embrace all these and more, instead of leading us into a policy quagmire. Incidentally, on the issue of 'niche and non-commercial channels', TRAI recommended that "this issue can be delinked from the current process which is aimed at promoting the growth of private FM radio and more specifically the licensing conditions for Phase II." >But on the other hand, if the government was interested in funding or >incentivising CR itself (may all the advocacy can help here) and >recognizes that CR needs a push, then there is a need for a separate >policy under an NC licensing scheme where specific entities could apply to quality for 'official CR' funding/incentives/subsidies, after they've been approved for an NC license. Well, Amit Mitra did suggest a Universal Service Obligation levy to be paid up by commercial operators, like the one levied in the Telecom sector. We suggested that a part of it should be diverted to CR. The Govt. believes that rural telecom needs a push (see today's TRAI Consultation Paper on rural telecom), and the Planning Commission certainly believes that rural radio deserves a push, but would CR be singled out for Govt. largesse? Wouldn't other non-commercial channels be equally deserving? Sajan. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Wed Oct 27 19:37:33 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:07:33 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> References: <20041027121438.9928.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 12:14 PM +0000 10/27/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >Well, Amit Mitra did suggest a Universal Service Obligation levy to >be paid up by commercial operators, like the one levied in the >Telecom sector. We suggested that a part of it should be diverted to >CR. The government has shown itself as completely unfit to managing the routing of funds to a particular cause, such as development of radio as an effective communications medium. Please let us not support it creating and managing a fund for the purpose, and gouging the commercial operators, so that they end up dumbing down content in programmes that are paying for the improvement of content! Right now they are doing that and not even generating development money! Can you imagine how much worse it can get if they are forced to fork out even more money? -- Vickram From arunlists at softhome.net Thu Oct 28 07:13:26 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:43:26 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <00b501c4bb86$54d19690$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <41807FF6.6080604@softhome.net> Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >I want >to take a step back. > > > You sure? The choice isn't between a sensible non-commercial radio policy and a flawed community radio one. The choice is between the TRAI putting out halfway-decent recommendations on community radio, or poor ones. Does anyone here have the time and energy, to first get the TRAI to step back from this process, and then get the government to again start moving forward, after we cried halt the previous time? Firstly, why is community radio on the table, and not non-commecial? Because for long, many of us have been asking for this. Maybe this discussion should have taken place, and a consensus built on what we actually want, some years ago. I just don't think, strategically, that this is a good time to bring up the issue again, and let this opportunity pass. TRAI is following a certain logic. Having accepted our urging that community radio needs to be looked at, it now wants to know how a distinction should be made from commercial radio, and what concessions in the policy should be made for this new kind of radio. If we support the process, there is a good chance that we will at least be able to live with the TRAI recommendations. A little more lobbying, and maybe we'll even get a community radio policy that makes it possible to set up a few such stations. The choice, really, is between some stations and none. It has been over a decade now, that the so-called community radio movement in India has been just talking about it. Why not let a few stations come up, so that we get some experience, instead of mere theoretical knowledge. Now, what kind of stations are these going to be? Please take a look at the AMARC definition, that we seemed to have a consensus around. Would we be happy to sea such stations coming up? Who qualifies to set up such stations? We should keep that as broad as possible, and it seems that TRAI sees the logic of not treating radio and newspapers differently. Just about anyone can start a newspaper, for me, I see no reason why for radio the eligibility should be less broad. Who decides that an organisation is actually running a community radio station, or merely pretending to? We can ask that it be an independent body, that functions transparently, with a substantial representation from the NGO community and civil society. Arun From disabilityradio at hotmail.com Thu Oct 28 09:50:33 2004 From: disabilityradio at hotmail.com (jean parkar) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:20:33 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Anna University Message-ID: I will be visiting in Chennai on this Tuesday and would like to visit the new radio station at Anna University. Who is the appropriate person to contact to arrange a visit? Or, if that person is on this list they can contact me directly off list. Thanks, Jean Parker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041028/6c473c5c/attachment-0001.htm From sreedher at annauniv.edu Thu Oct 28 10:23:45 2004 From: sreedher at annauniv.edu ( Dr R Sreedher ,Director AVRC,Chennai) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:53:45 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Anna University Message-ID: <200410280823.i9S8NjJW012819@ns.annauniv.edu> Kindly contact me as soon as you arrive in chennai. my cell no is 0444207459. regards sreedher > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > I will be visiting in Chennai on this Tuesday and would like to visit the new radio station at Anna University. Who is the appropriate person to contact to arrange a visit? Or, if that person is on this list they can contact me directly off list. > > Thanks, > > Jean Parker > > Dr.R. Sreedher Director, Audio visual research centre, Anna university Chennai 600025 India Telephone: +91 +44 22 30 01 05 Residence: l 40 Staff Quarters, Anna university, Chennai 600 025 Phone: 94 44 24402108 From media at web.net Fri Oct 29 02:37:55 2004 From: media at web.net (George Lessard) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:37:55 -0600 Subject: [cr-india] =?iso-8859-1?q?INDIA=92S_TELECOM_REGULATOR_SET_TO_REGU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?LATE_SATELLITE_BROADCASTING?= Message-ID: INDIA’S TELECOM REGULATOR SET TO REGULATE SATELLITE BROADCASTING ---------------------------------------------------------------- (27 oct 2004) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is going to appoint a consulting firm to propose a set of guidelines for satellite broadcasting in India. Satellite broadcasting services in India provide their services without any government intervention in absence of any licensing procedure. http://www.digitalopportunity.org/link/gotoarticle/addhit/96789/1138/7271 From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 09:58:40 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:58:40 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <41807FF6.6080604@softhome.net> Message-ID: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Here's what I said: "My argument is that without considering the pros and cons of this setup as seriously as a dedicated CR license setup, TRAI ought not to rush to draft CR policy and perhaps we must not straightaway encourage the otherwise sincere regulator to do so." > You sure? The choice isn't between a sensible non-commercial > radio policy and a flawed community radio one. I didn't say this was the choice on the cards, i.e., right now. Perhaps you read that into my note :-). I laid out a scenario and an argument partly because I didn't get the sense that the distinction was ever made between CR as a demand for outcome, and NC as a generalized policy mechanism to let those outcomes come. If it was, it surely seems to have missed the advocacy line. Having said that, it's true enough that the die has been cast and the policy questions have already been framed. We already know TRAI is going to send back recommendations for CR to the Ministry, not for NC. But those who want to send ADDITIONAL feedback to TRAI in response to the officials recent request ought to be able to weigh in on the concerns over distinction in a broader sense, rather than {CR, CR, CR}. I don't have a sense for what TRAI's reaction might be --- those who attended the meetings may be better placed for this -- but the broader perspective may be able to help TRAI centre their thinking on the fact that they themselves already laid out the primary distinction (for airwave regulatory purposes) between community radio and commercial -- that CR is non-commercial. After all throughout the CR paper, the regulator has used the term 'non-commercial', and in the right way. They already get it, but it seems to have gotten lost in the discourse. Some external feedback to them in this particular light might get them to loosen up a little and still send a CR policy recommendation to I&B. The characterisations and criteria regarding self management, representation, 'communityness', etc apply when TRAI wants to develop the OTHER (and necessary) parts of its CR policy. And they also separate CR from other forms of non-commercial radio, especially the independent public service broadcasting form. But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR may serve as primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I just don't believe isn't necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. I realize some folks are going to disagree with this. No harm done. > Who qualifies to set up such stations? We should keep that as > broad as possible, and it seems that TRAI sees the logic of > not treating radio and newspapers differently. Just about > anyone can start a newspaper, for me, I see no reason why for > radio the eligibility should be less broad. Here's how I see it: Newspapers are primarily printing news. They are regulated by the registrar of newspapers for their specialist peculiarities. Newspaper distribution is already a private service. For broadcasting, the question of who can access the airwaves (public property) is a separate and may be regulated differently (institutionally) from what the broadcaster can put on the airwaves. I see some calling this 'carriage vs content'. If TRAI is looking for a comparison in the print media to CR, it ought to be community newsletters. These are more inward looking than commercial print media, and are often privately circulated in the thousands. Some are registered, but many are niche publications and sustain communities of some sort around their circulations. NGOs do this all the time. -Subbu From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 02:19:18 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:19:18 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <00b701c4be16$1dedd3e0$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Clarification, this: > But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR > may serve as > primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I > just don't > believe isn't necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. Should read thus: But the notion that these well-loved characteristics of CR may serve as primary distinctions with commercial radio is nice to read; I just don't believe THIS is necessary for the airwave licensing aspects. -Subbu From arunlists at softhome.net Sat Oct 30 03:25:29 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:55:29 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] some CR figures In-Reply-To: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <001e01c4bd8d$1f995f40$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: <4182ED89.3080407@softhome.net> Subramaniam Vincent wrote >But those who want to send ADDITIONAL feedback to TRAI in response to >the officials recent request ought to be able to weigh in on the >concerns over distinction in a broader sense, rather than {CR, CR, CR}. > > You make good points, and certainly you are able to weigh in with the TRAI on the concerns. But mailing to CR is no replacement for the real thing. When TRAI had an open house in Mumbai on community radio licensing, there was nobody from the CR activists who attended. In Vickram Crishna's defense, he attended the one in Delhi (which too was very sparsely attended) -- where was everybody else? Is our interest in community radio, or non-commercial, merely to the extent of talking about it among ourselves? Arun From dx_india at rediffmail.com Sun Oct 31 07:18:47 2004 From: dx_india at rediffmail.com (Jose Jacob,India) Date: 31 Oct 2004 06:18:47 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] CAMPUS RADIO IN ERODE : ON AIR TESTS! Message-ID: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041031/65dc8b4d/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part --------------   MESSAGE FROM MR.K.RAJA,DX_INDIA IN TAMILNADU ERODE DISTRICT KONGU ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE HAS STARTED ITS TEST BROADCAST ON 08.10.2004 AT 90.40 MHZ. IT IS A SELF FINANCE COLLEGE. TEST BROADCAST GOING ON IN 90.40 MHZ FROM EVENING 4PM TO 9PM (IST) (10.30 -15.30 UTC).50 WATTS TRANSMITTER COVERS 15 K.M RADIUS. THE MAIN PROG IS EDUCATIONAL,INTERVIEW, GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, QUIZ, SPORTS. ALREADY IN CHENNAI 90.40 MHZ ANNA FM INDIA FIRST CAMPUS RADIO IS RUNNING. K.RAJA 21, J.P.KOIL STREET OLD WASHERMENPET CHEENAI-600021 k_raja123123 at yahoo.co.in   73 Jose Jacob, VU2JOS National Institute of Amateur Radio Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad 500082, India Telefax: 91-40-23310287 EchoLink:VU2NRO,India To join dx_india reflector which specialises exclusively on Broadcasting in India, send an email to dx_india-subscribe at yahoogroups.com From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sun Oct 31 13:02:06 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:32:06 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] CAMPUS RADIO IN ERODE : ON AIR TESTS! In-Reply-To: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> References: <20041031061847.5548.qmail@webmail27.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Wow! ;-) I can see the banner headlines - Number of licensed community radio stations in India doubles in less than a year! At 6:18 AM +0000 10/31/04, Jose Jacob,India wrote: > > MESSAGE FROM MR.K.RAJA,DX_INDIA > >IN TAMILNADU ERODE DISTRICT KONGU ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE HAS STARTED -- Vickram From fred at bytesforall.org Sat Oct 2 16:11:08 2004 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:41:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [cr-india] Radio is emerging as the medium with highest reach... BusinessIndia Message-ID: See Business India, Sept 13-26, 2004 and its article titled 'Lend me thy ear'. It says: "Radio is emerging as the medium with the highest reach". Quote: "According to the survey, Radio Mirchi gets more listeners than the combined readership of both the Times of India and Hindustan Times (58 lakh listeners vs. 34 lakh ToI readers and 13.4 lakh of HT) and is significantly more than the total viewership of Star Plus, the channel with the highest viewership (54 lakh)...." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Noronha (FN) Nr Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India Freelance Journalist P: 832-2409490 M: 9822122436 http://fn.swiki.net http://www.livejournal.com/users/goalinks http://fn-floss.notlong.com http://www.ryze.com/go/fredericknoronha ====================================================================== From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 11:11:55 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 09:11:55 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] subbu vincent on private FM Message-ID: <20041006091155.4728.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/242b6812/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- The following piece by Subbu Vincent appeared in Deccan Herald (Oct 5, 2004 - In Perspective). The idea of banning News on private FM radio, while permitting it on private TV channels, seems quite bizarre. I wonder which powerful intellect thought that one up. Sajan. POLICY IMBALANCE SHOULD BE REVERSED Govt does not allow news on private radio stations, allowing a monopoly for AIR to continue BY SUBRAMANIAM VINCENT The vibrant voices airing music shows on 20 odd private FM radio stations in our major cities do not reflect viability worries and restrictions that otherwise haunt this industry. In 2003-04, a whopping 93% of private broadcasters' total revenues went towards government license fees alone. Little wonder that two years in a row, stations have incurred hefty losses. Alongside this crisis, a critical policy imbalance awaits reversal. Private radio stations are banned from airing news programmes, but television, print and internet operations are not. But with the Cable TV regulatory issues hogging much of the limelight recently, serious questions regarding the future of radio policy are getting sidelined. Over six weeks ago, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) sent its final recommendations on a new phase of licensing for FM radio to the Broadcasting Ministry. Two prescriptions stood out for their progressive elements, but the Ministry's responses since then are indicating that government thinking on radio continues to be myopic. VIABILITY CRISIS TRAI asked the government to drop the bidding-driven process for setting radio license fees because it was this system that set the stage for the viability crisis. The regulator prefers a system more prevalent elsewhere in India and worldwide -revenue sharing. Under this system, stations will pay the government 4% of their gross revenue every year. Second, the regulator advised the Ministry to review its ban on private stations airing news and current affairs, currently a monopoly with All India Radio. In fact, TRAI stopped just short of asking for an outright removal of the ban. In response, the Ministry rejected revenue sharing stating that it would suffer a decrease in fee collections of over Rs 100 crore. It further argued against revenue sharing saying that it could not be sure it was getting its fair share from the stations because it could not verify the revenues of every radio station. But realising that it had to address the viability mess, a week ago the Ministry reportedly offered to ensure low license fees during new bidding, contradicting its earlier concerns about revenue decreases from lower fees. Revenue-sharing is more progressive because government fee inflows remain proportional to how well stations are doing. With fixed licence fees and static annual increases, this is not the case. The Ministry's sore point that it cannot monitor station revenues is a weak argument. Broadcasters are already paying service taxes on their revenues and their half-yearly statements are available with the ST authorities. The Ministry offers no evidence to show that radio broadcasters are a special lot that need to be singled out for special scrutiny. To TRAI's recommendation to review the ban on news, the Ministry has said the ban will remain. And here too, the 'monitoring' argument made an appearance. The Ministry feels it will be unable to monitor news on local stations and that this constituted a grave security threat. But are there grounds to allege that radio news broadcasters will be particularly cavalier on sensitive matters when their television counterparts have not been found against? In fact, anticipating this misplaced concern, TRAI did point out, correctly, that existing laws may be used to curb violations of radio programme code. WORRISOME INTRANSIGENCE But beneath this professed inability to comb our airwaves lies a worrisome intransigence that has afflicted every recent Central government. For years, New Delhi has been leaden-footed on instituting an independent broadcast regulator, preferring to arrogate this power to itself instead. A regulator with the mandate to create a level playing field is well suited to run a listener-driven complaints system to enforce the law on the air. This has been shown to be doable elsewhere. Second, in persisting with the current ban, the Ministry is only supporting AIR's continuing monopoly over radio news. Legally, the Ministry's positions stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling of 1995, where the Court asked New Delhi to open up the airwaves and appoint an autonomous broadcast regulator. The ruling warned that the right of private citizens to telecast is subject only to reasonable restrictions. There is little doubt that the Ministry's outright ban on private FM stations airing news is a monopolistic restriction and will be found so in the courts. Perhaps it is too much to expect the Broadcasting Ministry alone to shape a more open future for radio. The responsibility lies ultimately with the Cabinet since in any case it must sign off on new policy. For its part, the Cabinet needs to look at one plain contradiction. New Delhi cannot have it both ways - holding off on instituting an independent regulator and at the same time throwing up its hands over the inability to enforce radio code. Indian radio desperately needs a course correction. http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct052004/edst.asp From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 6 12:16:08 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 6 Oct 2004 10:16:08 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] DTH Radio Message-ID: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041006/9b6c1c0a/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- Prasar Bharati all set to launch DTH radio October 06 Vinod Behl Prasar Bharati is all set to launch radio channels on its DTH television platform. The 24-hour DTH service will provide different language channels, which will be available across India as well as in few neighbouring countries. The DTH radio channels are targeting regional language listeners living away from their native place and outside their language area. One will be able to listen to the programmes in mother tongue and stay up-dated with the happenings in the native city or state through DTH service on TV sets. These radio channels, however, will not be available on terrestrial broadcast and an ordinary radio receiver set cannot be tuned in to catch these signals. Prasar Bharati’s DTH radio service will cover all the prominent stations of the language area concerned, subject to the availability of linkage between the stations from where DTH programmes are up-linked and other radio stations in the language area. The radio channels will broadcast news and entertainment programmes with minimum education content. All India Radio will introduce DTH broadcasts in two phases. In the first phase, 10 digital radio channels will be launched while nine more will go on air in the second phase. © exchange4media 2004 From gautam at i4donline.net Fri Oct 8 11:05:09 2004 From: gautam at i4donline.net (Gautam Navin) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:35:09 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Open invitation to all interested in submitting article for i4d Dec, 04 issue on e-Governance References: <20041006101608.10848.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007801c4ad15$eb3cdf10$7b6464c8@Gautam> Dear All, As you all might know that i4d publishes a monthly thematic magazine on ICT4D, we therefore invite all of you to contribute articles for December 2004 issue which is on e-Governance. We request you to send us articles, reports, snippets etc. for the same. Kindly limit your article to 3000 words. We welcome reviews of the books published since the year 2000. The book review should be within 1500 words and must contain the cover image of the respective book. Kindly send us the images of the author/s along with their breif profile. We would be grateful if author could send us some relevant images that can go along with the article. Images should be of good quality and must be scanned at the resolution of 300dpi. We archived all the previous isssues on www.i4donline.net and therefore suggest you to have a look of the same just for the sake references. The link of previous i4d issue on e-Governance is http://www.i4donline.net/issue/nov03/content.htm . Kindly send article as an attachment through email to gautam at i4donline.net .You can also submit article online at http://www.i4donline.net/submit_article.asp Kindly send us the article latest by November 20, 2004. Please feel free to ask for any further information or assistance. Looking forward to your positive reply. With best regards, Gautam Navin Research Associate, i4d ----------------------------------------- CSDMS G4, Sector-39 Noida 201 301, India Tel: +91 120 2502180 to 87 Fax: + 91 120 2500060 Mobile: +91 9818125257 Email: gautam at i4donline.net Web: www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- Subscribe to daily i4d newsletter: Log on to www.i4donline.net --------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041008/a99541c8/attachment-0002.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 11 09:49:48 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 11 Oct 2004 07:49:48 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] about private FM Message-ID: <20041011074948.4250.qmail@webmail31.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041011/4c8c8da1/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- RADIO FAILS TO TUNE INTO RIGHT FREQUENCY October 11 Anushree Madan Mohan Given the Congress uproar at the General Elections and the party’s subsequent rise into power, what has been the impact on the radio industry? Is it still amounting to a process of endless negotiations and lack of a concrete initiative? Is political leadership perhaps shadowing the potential of this industry? To find answers to many such queries, exchange4media looked back in the history and reached out to some of the industry experts. In July 2003, the Union I&B Ministry set up Radio Broadcast Policy Committee, under the chairmanship of FICCI’s Amit Mitra, to work out a ‘transparent and effective auction process’ for allotment of radio frequencies. While the committee was entirely focused on commercial radio, there were some token references to policy for niche and non-commercial channels in its terms of reference. The committee brought out a report whose main concern was to ease the way for private FM broadcasters to switch from a license-fee regime to a revenue sharing system. In a more recent scheme of events, in 2004, New Delhi brought broadcasting under the definition of ‘telecommunication services’, effectively making the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India the regulator for both radio and television. A month later, the ministry sent the Mitra Committee report to Trai, seeking ‘appropriate recommendations’. Now that the recommendations have been made, elaborate deliberations are occurring on the same front. While it amounts to all reactions and no action from the ministry, there haven’t been sustained efforts from the private FM camp as well, claim certain quarters. Says AP Parigi, MD, Entertainment Network and CEO of Times Infotainment, “All politicians in this country are aware of the problems that the radio industry is facing. The new government may be over a hundred days old, but it fully comprehends that the current system of licensing is slowly eroding all private FM stations. We have had intense talks with the government in the past, but post TRAI recommendations, there have been continued and lengthy deliberations on the part of the ministry and players are not too clear about the headway achieved on the same. Some part of the same could be attributed to the key players of the industry itself. A big regret is the inability to get the entire radio group to sit together on a regular basis and thrash out common issues.” He continues, “Back in 2001, thanks to the McKinsey reports, we had brought in all the operators on a common platform via video conferencing to deal in an in-depth basis with the menace of licensing. With time, it’s become increasingly difficult to come together and to sort out issues such as licensing, octroi, service tax etc. So, now you find competition pulling off from certain areas, some have given notices to shut down and there are others that have actually shut down. By now, you should have had at least 400 radio stations in India. And here we are looking at who’s going to shut down next.” Despite all this, Parigi is hopeful to see some pro-active actions from the government’s side. He states, “I am a positive person, and I’m sure that our efforts would yield to some noteworthy reforms from the government’s side which would pave way to some other form of revenue sharing, rather than the current licensing regime.” Talking to exchange4media, a Radio Mid-Day spokesperson asserts, “Things are in a flux at the moment with the government deliberating over the Trai recommendations and the lack of a solid foundation as far as players are concerned. It would be a lot more beneficial to the industry as a whole if we had a committee for the radio industry, which could look after the overall interests and lobby hard on the government’s front. After the elections things are in a standstill with no clear action being taken from either party. In plain language, the radio industry is still stuck in a limbo.” Jagadesh Babu, Financial Controller, Music Broadcast Private Limited (Radio City), asserts, “We are still waiting for the opinion of the I&B Ministry on the recommendations from the task force and Trai. It is my belief that the private FM players have been working very hard to put together a united front and to represent the problems to the ministry over the last few years – a fact which has remained unchanged even in recent times. As far as the committee beat is concerned, in order to organise the category better, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation has set up a radio sub committee and is keen to represent the private FM radio group.” However, as one looks deep into the Indian radio industry, lots of interesting things keep coming up. In August 1953, BV Keskar, a puritanical minister in charge of the information and broadcasting domain, delivered a broadside on commercial broadcasting. Commercial radio, as he said, would fall into the clutches of foreign interests and become a slave to advertising revenue. These forces, Keskar had warned, were “bound to bring down the quality of radio programmes and convert them into a cheap vaudeville show”. Long fifty years have gone. Commercial radio is back on its agenda, but it is still lying unresolved. © exchange4media 2004 From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Wed Oct 13 11:01:36 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 13 Oct 2004 09:01:36 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041013/e2aa9137/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, Oct 20). The information is not on the TRAI website yet, so we'll have to wait for a while for venue details etc. I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. Sajan. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 Frederick Noronha(FN) wrote : >Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI's) advisor Mr Bhattacharya phone to say that they would be having specific open house discussions in Delhi (Monday) on Oct 18 and in Mumbai on Oct 20 (Wednesday). The adverts for the same are to be announced in the papers shortly. He was just giving us advance notice. Could those in either of the cities kindly plan some initiatives? FN From arunlists at softhome.net Wed Oct 13 13:20:55 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:50:55 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: "sajan venniyoor" This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai (Wednesday, > Oct 20). ... > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our strategy, and > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, done that... but > do we have a choice? Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he mentioned that they need a proper definition of community radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. I have a problem with any definition that prevents law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue share one, for making access to community radio more restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not just have one FM radio policy?

> Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template for the open > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well.
 >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the open house discussion will be the list of questions in the discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. Arun ___ >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, what is different now? I remember, that at the time when Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The government would like to deny certain groups access to broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way at least people from other communities can hear what is being said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. Such an archive would not just have a negative, control function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content between community radio stations, which would save a lot by reduced reinventing of the wheel. I also believe that there is urgent need for internal discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio could counteract this.   Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of community radio, would be for the government to ask each applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. The government must then insist that the station ensure fair access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why does the government? Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an obvious argument. Sincerely, Arun Mehta From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Thu Oct 14 09:47:26 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 14 Oct 2004 07:47:26 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House on CR Message-ID: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/227c9f66/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- Here's TRAI's Notice on their Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues Related to Community Radio". I am also appending the Issues for Consultation (from TRAI's Consultation Paper on CR). Sajan. ------ TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA A-2/14, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI – 110029. The TRAI will be holding Open House Discussion in Delhi and Mumbai on the following subject at the date, venue and time given below:- Licensing issues related to Community Radio 18.10.2004(Monday) Kautilya Hall, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 10.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. 20.10.2004(Wednesday) Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All interested agencies / individuals are invited to participate. The consultation paper is available on the TRAI Website www.trai.gov.in. Issues posed for public consultation will also be available at the venue of the Open House Discussion. For any clarification, please contact Shri Rakesh Kacker, Advisor (B&CS), Ph. 011-26713291, Fax. 011-26713442, email: rkacker at trai.gov.in. ---------------------- Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? f) What should be the period of license? g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Thu Oct 14 10:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] [Mumbai] TRAI Open House on CR In-Reply-To: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> References: <20041013090136.10195.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 9:01 AM +0000 10/13/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >I guess this means that all of us in Delhi and Mumbai should get >together to plan our strategy, and ensure a massive turn-out at the >Open House. Been there, done that... but do we have a choice? I am not sure what exactly you mean by been there, done that, since I was the only person present and vocal in the sparsely attended meeting on commercial FM called by Mr Kacker last time in Mumbai - only a couple of channels showed up too. This time round, the subject is community radio. As Arun said, we need a rational policy for the designated spectrum for FM in this country. Divide and rule is an age-old technique used successfully for centuries by those who find grassroots development intensely threatening. It is no less true for the spectrum, which can become a powerful tool for self-reliance when it is used (as defined by the ITU, to which our nation is signatory) as a public medium. I noticed an advt today for service tax - it says something to the effect that the revenue deptt does not demand any additional paperwork from service tax payers [just the ;-) money will do, thanks very much]. Why should revenue collection for the media be any different? There are existing laws and rules regarding the payment of revenue and its documentation - which clearly specify under what circumstances small organisations are exempted from the detailed work that larger ones can handle. The current trend in most government departments is to simplify, simplify, simplify. We have less than 400 stations of any kind in India today - and most of these are run by a single organisation. As Sajan pointed out earlier, AIR is not in a position to handle massive expansion right now. And indeed, why should it? It makes a lot more sense to foster hundreds and thousands of stations, that can act as a vast training ground to feed resources to the few hundred commercial and public stations that can and will create an economic framework around this medium. Just as the government wisely decided in 1982 to cease collecting annual revenues from receiver owners, judging that such collection would probably be infructuous, so must it now follow that line and open up the spectrum for intense use, not limiting it to those that can afford to pay huge amounts to create an uneven playing field. This will happen more effectively when low power broadcasting is recognised and encouraged in its diversity of applications, without creating separate categories based on ownership and revenue models. Today's barriers to entry are economic and technical. The second will be solved naturally and organically if the first is lowered and simplified. Is anyone else on this list planning to be present for the meeting in Mumbai? Please add the prefix [Mumbai] to the subject line as I have done above, so that all the listmembers are alerted to what may well be a narrower discussion about this specific meeting. Vickram From drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in Thu Oct 14 11:17:38 2004 From: drishtiad1 at sancharnet.in (DRISHTI) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:47:38 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Answers to TRAI References: <20041014074726.30398.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <007501c4b1cf$37278520$9b31013d@mypc> we [drishti & kmvs] will not be able to make it to the TRAI consultations on 18th and 20th. but hopefully some of will be there. most of the questions this consultations seeks to address have been raised by our group time and again..yet i am putting down answers to some of them so that those going to the consultation can raise it on our behalf. HERE GOES... Issues for consultation Eligibility: a) What should be the eligibility criteria or would it be better to lay down non-eligibility criteria? THE CR STATION SHOULD BE OWNED, CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY THE COMMUNITY WITH NOT-FOR-PROFIT MOTIVE b) Whether Gram Panchayats and other local bodies should be eligible? YES. c) Whether nationality of persons controlling the applicant organization should be an eligibility criterion? INDIAN CITIZENS d) Whether financial condition of the applicant organization, its ability to raise resources and overall financial sustainability should be an eligibility criterion? NO e) Whether the applicant should be a legal entity? NON-LEGAL APPLICANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS REGISTER THE PROPOSED CR STATION IN THE INTERIM PERIOD OF APPLICATION AND THE ACTUAL LICENSE BEING GRANTED. f) Whether Co-operatives engaged in commercial activities should be eligible? YES. INFACT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE NOT ON THE TYPE OF ORGANISATION APPLYING BUT THAT THE APPLICANT OPERATES THE CR STATION FOR NON-PROFIT AND COMMUNITY DRIVEN PURPOSES. Licensing Process: a) Whether the applicants may be given temporary permits to operate for the time taken to grant a regular license? YES. IF THE APPLICANT SO DESIRES b) Whether an Independent Licensing Body should be set up to examine, evaluate and decide on the applications for Community Radio License? THAT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO EASEN THE PROCESS. INFACT THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE WINDOW FOR CLEARING APPLICATIONS c) Whether the requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee be done away with? YES. d) Whether any of the clearances required today can be dispensed with? e) Whether time limits for individual clearances should be laid down, beyond which the department may be deemed to have given consent? YES. 6 MONTHS f) What should be the period of license? 3 YEARS MINIMUM g) What should be the maximum permitted transmitter power and antenna height? 50 KILOMETER RADIUS. h) Should separate frequencies be earmarked for Low Power Commercial Radio or should they be part of the same licensing process of community radio? IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOCATE FREQUENCIES FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR CR STATIONS i) If frequencies are to be earmarked, then should the licensing framework follow the parameters of larger commercial services of phase-II? Funding: a) Whether Community Radio Stations should be given grants by the Government? If so, whether this should be given by the Government of India or State Governments? If not, what possible arrangements could be allowed funding the operations? THE PROPOSED CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ANY 'LEGAL' GRANTS, WHETHER FROM THE STATE, CENTRE OR FOREIGN AGENCIES b) Whether commercial advertising should be permitted? If yes, then with what restrictions, if any? YES. OUR INTENTION SHOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF THE STATION WITH A PURPOSE NOT-FOR-PROFIT. SO ALL REVENUES WILL HAVE TO PLOUGHED BACK INTO RUNNING THE COMMUNITY DRIVEN STATION UNLIKE PRIVATE FM RADIOS WHERE PROFITS GO INTO PRIVATE POCKETS. c) Whether Community Radio Stations should be permitted to accept funds from foreign donors? YES. THE CR STATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS ALL 'LEGAL' SOURCES OF MONEY d) Whether any license fee and spectrum use charges should be levied by the Government? NO. WE NEED TO KEEP REMINDING OURSELVES THAT CR STATIONS ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT VENTURES FOR AND BY THE COMMUNITY. THE GOVERMENT CANNOT DISCOURAGE OR PENALISE THIS VENTURE WITH A FEE! e) Whether any relaxation should be given in customs duty for import of equipment? YES. THATS THE MINIMUM THE GOVERMENT SHOULD CONTRIBUTE IN THIS WHOLE VENTURE CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO INVEST ANY MONEY IN SETTING UP THESE STATIONS. Regulation & Monitoring: a) Whether there should be a separate programme code for community radio? CR STATIONS CAN FOLLOW THE EXISITING AIR PROGRAMME CODE b) Whether the ban on broadcast of news and current affairs programmes should continue? WHY SHOULD IT CONTINUE? WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?? c) Whether Community radio stations should be required to keep recordings of their transmission? If yes, then what should be the specified period? YES. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS d) Whether the existing guidelines need to be revised, especially with regard to religious programmes? WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY RELGIOUS PROGRAMMES? THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION WITH PROGRAMMES WITH RELIGIOUS [OR POLITICAL] CONTENT. WHAT WE NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR IS PROGRAMMES THAT MAY HARM COMMUNAL, RELIGIOUS HARMONY OR IS AGAINST ANY CONSTITUTIONALY ENSHRINED PRINCIPALS OF DEMOCRACY. Hope and wish that consulation is meaningful and fruitful!! In harmony, Stalin K. For, Drishti Media Collective & Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041014/f8fa6731/attachment-0002.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 08:35:05 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:05 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041013165055.321752642.arunlists@softhome.net> Message-ID: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Arun and others, On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think it’s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because that means he (trusting his credentials for the moment) is actually thinking about it, especially because of the perception that revenue-sharing must be exempt for CR licenses. (I think that perception is problematic). But on the DEFINTION bug, here's a bit on the South African experience. SA and India in particular have much in common particularly in terms of the concern that usually gets centred around the term 'commmunity'. We have caste and relgious stratification in India and SA has been recently rebuilding its institutions from the legacy of massive racial divisions. I had the good fortune recently of running into the Nov 2003 Ph.D thesis of Tanja E Bosch that studied Bush Radio of Cape Town, South Africa in depth. The thesis is titled 'Radio, community, and identity in South Africa: A rhizomatic study of Bush Radio in Cape Town" (289 pp. I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this list who may want it. I've taken the liberty of reproducing text from a few parts of the thesis. I am pretty sure the May I&B-UNDP consultations would have had at least some folks who are/were already familiar with this. But many others on this list may not be. The dissertation was done to the College of Communication, Ohio University: BEGIN QUOTES, Courtesy of Tanja E Bosch's paper: What constitutes community radio? "The key concepts underlying community media are access, participation and self-management (Lewis, 1993). The public is brought closer to communication systems through their ability to access materials and the availability of a range of relevant materials. Access includes feedback, whereby audience members interact directly with producers of messages, participate during the broadcast of programs, and are encouraged to comment and criticize. Participation implies the widespread involvement of ordinary people at the levels of production, decision-making, management and planning. Self-management is thus the height of participation, through which the target audience exercises decision-making on all levels. (Lewis, 1993)" Who is the 'community'? "While Bush Radio has always targeted a specific geographic area, after the end of apartheid and abolition of the Group Areas Act, black people are no longer concentrated in those areas. Furthermore, the station's broadcast range extends to areas outside of the Cape Flats, and many listeners call the station from these areas. The audience is no longer a black audience. Some white presenters work at the station, and there are many calls from white South Africans. The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community as a group of people who are interested in alternative information". END QUOTES Revenue sharing and CR: I am personally of the opinion that TRAI is not siezed of the differences between the various sources of funds that a CR station may use for its operations. Only some cash inflows of a CR station may be subjectable to revenue-sharing under the same terms as commercial-FM licensees (say 4%, if ever that happens, as per TRAI recommendations for the commercial FM operators). If only non-profit organizations are given CR licenses, many of the cash inflows to stations could become exempt from revenue shares, as they must be. For all grants, listener payments/memberships etc that come into a station for funding its expenses, the government must not ask for a revenue-share, since these moneys are technically donations. This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This way no special organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR alone -- something that will bog everything down further. Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little experience of the latter, in radio. If a CR station earns Rs.1 lakh in a given year on underwriting (i.e. the station will announce the name of the program supporter/organization/group along with a slogan/line about that group, as opposed to airing an AD of that entity), those revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). -Subbu > -----Original Message----- > From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net > [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Arun Mehta > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:21 AM > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? > > > > From: "sajan venniyoor" > This one's from Rico, who writes to say that TRAI is holding > > an Open House on CR in Delhi (Monday, Oct 18) and Mumbai > (Wednesday, > > Oct 20). ... > > us in Delhi and Mumbai should get together to plan our > strategy, and > > ensure a massive turn-out at the Open House. Been there, > done that... but > > do we have a choice? > > Has there ever been a TRAI open house on community radio? > > Mr. Baijal was at a meeting of the Alliance 2007, he > mentioned that they need a proper definition of community > radio. The reason, he said was that commercial FM stations > will pay a revenue share, while community radio wishes to be exempt. > > I have a problem with any definition that prevents > law-abiding people from starting a community radio station -- > as my mail to him, appended below, makes clear. If community > radio isn't going to generate revenue, why should we care if > some 5% of zero has to be paid to government (the argument > holds even if CR stations generate a modest amount of > revenue). In the event of any government subsidies or special > facilities, the government can put down guidelines for whom > it wants to support. But why should the policy bar anyone? > > What rationale can there be, if you throw out the revenue > share one, for making access to community radio more > restrictive than to commercial? To simplify matters, why not > just have one FM radio policy? > > > Shall we use the Report on the May 2004 workshop > > (UNDP/UNESCO/I&B Ministry workshop on CR) as our template > for the open > > house discussions? It covers the ground pretty well. > > >From past experience with such meetings, the template at the > open house discussion will be the list of questions in the > discussion paper the TRAI put out earlier. > Arun > ___ > >From my mail to Mr. Baijal: > The lack of a clear definition has not bothered TRAI before, > what is different now? I remember, that at the time when > Internet Telephony was being discussed at TRAI, many people > pointed out, that you cannot, any longer, distinguish between > a personal computer and a phone. Modern phones all have > computers inside them. They can be programmed quite easily > for all sorts of purposes. Pocket computers routinely do > mobile telephony these days. Yet, TRAI continues to make this > distinction, to the detriment of poor people, who only have > access to public phones, and not to what the TRAI considers to be PCs. > > Then again, the TRAI seems worried about litigation holding > up telecom reform. Yet, it seems to me to be heading in the > direction of a policy that will be in clear violation of > Article 19 of our Constitution, which does not make the right > to free speech available only to a certain kind of citizen. > Would it not be our duty as citizens, to take such a policy to court? > > Let me attempt to get to the heart of the matter. The > government would like to deny certain groups access to > broadcasting abilities, for instance to sectarian groups. It > fears that rumours will spread in this way. My response is > that rumours spread easily without the use of technology (and > does the government do anything to prevent rumours spreading > through the phone, SMS or the Internet? Is it OK to spread > rumours in one way, but not another?). Further, I believe we > are better off, if rumours are broadcast in the open, rather > than spread quietly through the back alleys, because this way > at least people from other communities can hear what is being > said, and take steps to counteract the rumours in time. The > government cannot hope to itself monitor all that is > broadcast. I doubt it does that today with satellite TV and > newspapers. It must rely on other local people complaining. > Just as the Press Council does, a Radio Council could handle > such complaints. Perhaps it could be given some teeth to > enforce its rulings. In order to ensure that such a council > receives proper evidence, it could insist that everything > broadcast on community radio be recorded and sent to a > central archive. CD recorders do not cost much these days. A > single CD costing Rs. 15 can easily hold a days' broadcast. > Such an archive would not just have a negative, control > function: it could also facilitate the exchange of content > between community radio stations, which would save a lot by > reduced reinventing of the wheel. > > I also believe that there is urgent need for internal > discussion in religious communities. Often, the church or > temple does not offer a platform to the progressives, > allowing the radical elements to prevail. Community radio > could counteract this.   > > Perhaps one way to handle the issue, of the definition of > community radio, would be for the government to ask each > applicant to define which community he or she seeks to cover. > The government must then insist that the station ensure fair > access to all segments of that community, or even all its individuals. > > Relating to the regulation of a medium that is protected by > Article 19 of the Constitution, the government already has a > model in the case of print. Why does the government wish to > reinvent the wheel? For illiterate people who cannot publish > or write in newspapers, radio is a critical outlet for free > speech. If our Constitution does not distinguish between > radio and print with regard to the right to free speech, why > does the government? > > Sorry for being a bit preachy, but I fail to see why the > government continues to disregard what, to me, seems like an > obvious argument. > > Sincerely, > > Arun Mehta > From vvcrishna at softhome.net Fri Oct 15 10:45:31 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:15:31 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <008c01c4b281$22817010$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 11:35 PM -0700 10/14/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >I have the PDF version that I can share with individuals on this >list who may want it. Yes, please. >The station has attempted to redefine its understanding of community >as a group of people who are >interested in alternative information. This is the beauty and strength of broadcast, that the potential audience is anyone within reach. To make the community meaningful, as we have seen in countless examples, there has to be a sense of connectedness - for the least developed parts of this country, obviously such connectedness cannot arise from tele-links (ie phone-ins and the like), hence our focus (at Radiophony, I mean) on low power rather than community as the defining characteristic. If I may add some small amount of personal experience, I met Zane Ibrahim, Bush Radio's founder, in Kathmandu last year. I never got the impression that he was xenophobic, or would favor xenophobia, in any way - quite the opposite. On the other hand, SA's regulatory authority, ICASA, was also represented at AMARC-8, and its position was loudly reminiscent of our own besaddled bureaucrats - "radio is capable of being greatly misused", "do not allow it to fall into the wrong hands", "terrorists are just waiting to get their hands on it", you know the sort of thing. Fortunately for us, TRAI appears to have a better handle on things. We also have a notable track record in India of powerful and violent alternate political movements - and none of them use radio to foment local unrest. Is it that the medium just does not work for this purpose? In a recent report from Nepal that we must all have read, the incipient MCC radio station/s seem to have run into the same problem - propaganda does not make for listenership, nor is it effective for disseminating violence. Whether TRAI's recommendations will be taken seriously is another matter, but at least this is the window through which we have a chance to be heard. Let us not waste this opportunity by aiming too low. >This is partly why in my feedback to TRAI, I had recommended that >licenses be given to entities legally registered as non-profit >organizations ALREADY, i.e. charitable trusts, societies etc. This >way no special >organizational registries and regulations need to be created for CR >alone -- something that will bog everything down further. This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is wishful, I am afraid. It won't be easy for the more deprived to undertake what may seem to us city dwellers to be a routine deal of paperwork, or even to comprehend the necessity for it. Why create this problem? The Act and its judicious enforcement are in any case far from perfect. >The question of revenue sharing arises only if commercial >advertising ITSELF is allowed on CR stations. But that point was >addressed in the I&B-UNDP meeting, it looks like. (The entrepenurial >CR sorts may want to do it reduce reliance on grants). If allowed, >the revenue-sharing formulas may be applicable on that PORTION of >station revenues. The question may also arise if CR stations make >CDs, books, tapes etc available for sale as part of revenue >generation. (similar to sales and service taxes). Nothing exists in a vacuum. Communication development through the very first stage of ICT - FM - will not end here. Once media awareness is created, we will logically and rationally expect other forms of ICT to be introduced, since a demand for them will evolve. Audio streams may become available on the Net, for instance. Will revenues from Net subscribers be counted in the revenue sharing model? Will ads placed on the site be counted? Will T-shirt or handicraft sales generated from the site also be counted towards station revenues under this heading? Is it really necessary (or even possible) to dot every single 'i' and cross every single 't' ad nauseam before a genuinely development oriented policy can be conceptualised? In our submission to TRAI the first time round, we opined that a new policy is needed speedily, one that will encourage the flowering of tens of thousands, not hundreds, of stations. Some of these will fail, probably, and not just because of poor policy planning. Why add hundreds of clauses of a needlessly detailed policy to the list of possible reasons for failure? Surely we need not be ashamed to announce a genuinely interim policy for the next five years, in the expectation that we will all be much wiser with actual experience of local radio under the belt? The previous 'wisdom' has already been shown up, so rather than merely try to do one better this time round, a truly liberally oriented policy may open up this sector to create the foundation for a genuine information revolution. Revenue exploitation may also come about better when there is something to tax, something better scaled to a nation of a billion people and 600k villages. Currently we have 28 (and that number is dwindling) stations running in the 42 cities and towns for which licenses have been granted, according to today's Indian Express, Mumbai edition. And get SACFA and WPC out of the way, they have not yet learned their job is facilitation, not official terrorism. -- Vickram From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:27:09 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 15 Oct 2004 11:27:09 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041015/e8c47cf8/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it’s a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the ‘community’ is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 07:54:19 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:24:19 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> References: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: At 11:27 AM +0000 10/15/04, sajan venniyoor wrote: >programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and >cultural needs of the specific community it serves. Just a point to reflect on here: commercial channels in Mumbai and other cities tend to broadcast in Hindi far more than in English, despite the apparent English-language bias of the yuppies who appear to form their major listener strength, judging from the actual content. Can anyone argue that these channels are not reflecting the needs of their particular communities, far more accurately than could be judged by looking at the language of newspapers that aim at the same audience? There are quizzes and many many interactive programmes that examine urban issues, and at least in Mumbai the traffic reporting (highly critical in a linear city that moves over two million people around per hour in the crush periods) is almost completely listener-driven. Very empirical, but those three phrases cover 'educational', 'cultural' and 'developmental'. Collaborating to divide the use of spectrum between different classes of users is inviting potentially antagonistic and conflicting behaviour between them. This has already been visible in the previous Open House, especially here in Mumbai. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 08:54:26 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:54:26 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <20041015112709.1511.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <00d801c4b34d$007dbab0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Dear Sajan, ~~minor error in earlier message. I meant to say that TRAI does NOT seem to be aware of underwriting/advertising differential. Also, second error, I meant to say that perhaps underwriting revenues could be exempted from commerical-FM terms revenue-sharing, since they are NOT commercial-quid-pro-quo revenues in the strictest sense. I realize in your experience (India) that underwriting may have fudged long enough advertising, but this isn't so everywhere (country). ~~~the defintions issue: My understanding is that TRAI's advisor/others already have access to the report from the I&B-UNDP meeting and through that, the particular CR definitions you cite as well. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of 'development/NGO' sounding definitions, but I'd also be the first to agree that there's little point in having a hair splitting exercise over perceptions and definitions in themselves. There's plenty of definitions flying around, and given that TRAI did some upfront research before setting many of their questions, my guess would be that they are not unfamiliar with the trends in thinking. The question to be asked it seems is WHY TRAI is raising the definition issue now. They didn't deem it fit to make it an all important question in the CR paper. (maybe better late than never it will get hashed out again at the consultations). -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:27 AM To: A list on community radio in India Subject: Re: RE: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 Subramaniam Vincent wrote : >On the topic of TRAI wanting a definition of community radio: I think >it's a good thing that the Chairman is asking these questions, because >that means he ... is actually >thinking about it Dear Subbu, Months before the May 2004 workshop, we came out with a draft CR Policy which attempts a reasonable definition of 'Community' and 'Community Radio'. This 'consensus document' (as Dr.Vinod Pavarala elegantly calls his creation) was circulated during the May workshop. 1.1. Definition of Community: Community may be defined as a non-sectarian group of individuals who are territorially-bound and share a common socio-economic position/interest; for the purpose of community radio, the 'community' is constituted by those who reside within the coverage area of the radio station. 1.2. Definition of Community Radio: Community radio has three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio is distinguished by its limited local reach, low-power transmission, and programming content that reflects the educational, developmental and cultural needs of the specific community it serves. >Also, TRAI does seem to be particularly aware of the difference between >program underwriting and advertising. In India, there is little >experience of the latter, in radio. The Ministry of I&B is also quite aware of the difference between programme underwriting (which we call sponsorship) and advertising, and they have banned both in the existing guidelines. "4.9: The licensee shall not air any advertisement or sponsored programmes." In practical terms, the difference between sponsorship and advertising is so negligible as to be non-existent. However, we ought to make a clear distinction between broadcast revenue and non-broadcast revenue, and it is a moot point whether the Govt. can expect a 4% share of revenue from off-air activities like the sale of CDs and mementos, donations, ticket-sales from concerts and what-have-you. Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 09:14:25 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:14:25 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > This would be completely reasonable if our rural areas were > adequately part of the same socio-economic structure as the urban > agglomerates. But they aren't, and lack of information is part of the > problem. Having a radio station will not automatically bring in > banks, shops, land records and honest government officers, whose jobs > are understood to be facilitation and not obfuscation. > > They aren't quite thick on the ground now, unfortunately, and > expecting truly representational bodies to be already registered > under the Charities Act (is that Charitable Organisations Act?) is > wishful, I am afraid. Vickram, I acknowledge there are several answers to the 'legal entity' question, and hopefully this will get throughput at the consultations next week. But I suspect you are misreading my remarks. Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. -Subbu From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Sat Oct 16 10:59:48 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:29:48 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: Hi all, I want to know of any prospect/project of running community radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and policy implications for such initiatives? Regards, Atanu Atanu Garai ICT Advocacy Officer OneWorld South Asia C- 2/6, Safdurjung Development Area New Delhi - 110016 India. T +91 11 51756975 F +91 11 51756976 E atanu.garai at oneworld.net www.digitalopportunity.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041016/9b30146b/attachment-0002.htm From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 11:29:15 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:59:15 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> References: <00dd01c4b34f$cb9dc800$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> Message-ID: At 12:14 AM -0700 10/16/04, Subramaniam Vincent wrote: >Are you saying that even the legitimate amongst the current crop of >NGOs in the rural areas are 'not representative' enough to apply for >licenses on behalf & with the communities they work for? An NGO is >already a Trust or a Society or a Coop or a Sec 25 non-profit. Not at all. I am not in favor of any exclusionary policy, that is all I want to say. I say nothing about the worthiness of any NGO. There certainly are many whose work is exemplary. The Charitable Societies Act or whatever it is called should not be the starting point, it is setting the bar too high. >We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to >get the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be >broad enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups >that are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural >India is covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users >associations, NGOs, et al. Perhaps the policy should look to >applicants from here first and then look at other situations where >no organizing exists at all. Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have a working base of operational stations? Do you think if a village had a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? An ideal interim policy would be inclusive, with exclusionary principles being added on a need basis only after real evidence is collected. Unlike some others, including government officers whose quotes have been seen in the local and international press, I have an abiding faith in both the Constitution and in the people of India. Not necessarily in that order, or in any order, mind you. -- Vickram From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sat Oct 16 13:12:21 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:42:21 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in community wireless network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 20:30:10 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:30:10 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <013901c4b3ae$3108d3c0$0500a8c0@SVNotebook> > Why should we not ask for an interim policy that allows the largest > number to start, then look for refinements down the road once we have > a working base of operational stations? I don't disagree with this at all. It's a good thing to be inclusionary, rather than restrictive, and let experiences tell, like you point out. But these are high level principles and nuances that you and I can agree should guide the devil and its details. What I'm unable to visualize how this might work in practice though. > Do you think if a village had > a really good station going anyone should care who owned it? I realize that in practice a handful of individuals can telecast over a few kms with a 1W-50W transmitter out of a room with a terrace. But look at the problem from the point of view of the license assigner. Who should a license be given to in terms of fixing ownership of process and even the few silly formalities that will necessary from to time? An individual? It looks like we're both visualizing different situations. Explain a little more about how an 'unincorporated' entity will maintain accounts, file tax statements, WITHOUT mixing up the individuals' own finances with it. What if the individual had a disagreement with someone else (very very common in India) and decided to move with his/her license to some other village/town? Also, forgetting these things for the moment -- what really concerns many is that I&B is unable (YET) to come to terms quickly with allowing commercial-FM stations air news! That's our starting point! I don't say that means we should water ourselves down and not assert for the rainbow with TRAI. But perhaps what we ask must be understood and packaged by TRAI in such a way that the quickest middle path can be found to get an open-policy rolled out and scalp away and other things as we go along. (again like you point out, assuming that I&B will even take TRAI seriously). -Subbu From arunlists at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 05:36:50 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:06:50 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] why distinguish CR from regular FM? Message-ID: <20041017090650.169617681.arunlists@softhome.net> > From: Subramaniam Vincent > We cannot on the one hand argue for an interim policy 'that needs to > get > > the bus going' and also say that that the policy must at once be broad > enough to deliver licenses to the weakest organized of groups that > are not already in associations of some sort. Plenty of rural India is > covered by SHGs, rural trade/farmers/water-users associations, NGOs, et > > al. Perhaps the policy should look to applicants from here first and > then look at other situations where no organizing exists at all. It is hard to get the government to reopen a policy debate. Now that we have the opportunity, we should ask for a sensible policy. Please remember, that by agreeing to a criterion for "allowing" an organisation to run a community radio station, we are giving the government an excuse to deny people such access. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but could someone tell me why it should be any harder to get permission to start a radio station, than to start a newspaper, assuming, of course, that spectrum isn't a constraint? Does Article 19 of the Constitution mean nothing to us? Are we not prepared to defend it? Arun From vvcrishna at softhome.net Sun Oct 17 18:46:16 2004 From: vvcrishna at softhome.net (Vickram Crishna) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:16:16 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio Message-ID: Forwarding this snippet, partly in response to Atanu's mail and partly cos we had a bit of discussion earlier if I recall rightly, about using iTrip with the iPod. >From: Shekhar Krishnan >Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood Public Radio >Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:44:29 +0530 > > > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: andy at remotelinux.com >Date: 8 October 2004 1.32.52 GMT+05:30 >To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net >Subject: Re: Neighborhood Public Radio >Reply-To: andy at remotelinux.com > >on this thread a relevent topic may be podcasting, a concept im taking to >mean as audio blogging but is expanding to other areas. namely how >http://rhzradio.net/ is taking the idea of microradio a step further, >encouraging volunteers to setup a micro transmitter in their home for less >then $100 to broadcast the station via a distributed-model and within the >law. when this is multiplexed to include video and text a generation of >multimedia networks to over (or under) shadow corporate media jaugernauts >will exist. the information wants to be free. its a no brainer to take >this a step further with dynamic dns to add a layer of cost free domain >system that can exist with dns and existing networks to expand free >comminication channels without the domination of monetary and legal >interferences. viva libre. > >andy > > > > > ># distributed via : no commercial use without permission ># is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, ># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets ># more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body ># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net > > >_____ > >Shekhar Krishnan >9, Supriya, 2nd Floor >Plot 709, Parsee Colony Road no.4 >Dadar, Mumbai 400014 >India > >http://crit.org.in/members/shekhar -- Vickram From atanu.garai at oneworld.net Mon Oct 18 06:56:44 2004 From: atanu.garai at oneworld.net (Atanu Garai) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:26:44 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am aware of this that practically WLAN can not replace the model of community radio we are thinking of. Or at least radio seems to have high degree of mobility with good reception quality, that WLAN cant provide. I am trying to explore how much a community could save and per head expenses if all needful ICT applications could run over a single community network infrastructure. That perhaps will make sense even we take into account very low per capita income of rural India in developmental context. It seems wi-fi has promises of being all inclusive ICT infrastructure, even integrating cellular phone calls. Policy (both recommendations from TRAI and DOT-WPC) seems to be favorable for establishing community network, but we can see the prospect of such network only when it is brought out. Regards, Atanu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net]On Behalf Of Vickram Crishna Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:42 PM To: A list on community radio in India Cc: India-Gii Subject: Re: [cr-india] Prospects of community radio/video in communitywireless network At 2:29 PM +0530 10/16/04, Atanu Garai wrote: >I want to know of any prospect/project of running community >radio/community video on any standard wireless community networks >like IEEE 802.11b or 11g? What could be technological, economic and >policy implications for such initiatives? Technologically, running multimedia applications on a network requires only sufficient bandwidth. WiFi technically has enough bandwidth at 11 Mbps and upwards (depending on the flavour) for anything like this, but remember that the effective throughput is a function of distance (bandwidth drops with distance) - it was designed for something like 30 meters maximum, although much greater distances (the Digital Gangetic Plain experiment achieved some connectivity even at 37 and 38 km) are feasible with some tweaking of antennae and output power. Your second question is more interesting. While radio is perfectly trivial to run on any LAN, even wireless, how do you think of this as community radio in the developmental context? Where will you find such concentrations of computers in a rural or deprived environment that any context of development still makes sense? Even community video is a questionable concept here, though less so if we posit that lower income groups do share television sets and video players nowadays in order to see movies, hence will not balk at substituting/alternating them with networks of computers. Provided someone else pays, to be sure. A decent sized TV and DVD player can be had for around 25K, and hired for much less even in rural areas, but where will the computers come from? I am not sure that policy plays any role in this, now that an in principle delicensing approval of both the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands is underway. -- Vickram _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/2a596292/attachment-0002.htm From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Mon Oct 18 11:50:49 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 18 Oct 2004 09:50:49 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041018/ee466e41/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear all, The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I’ll share some first impressions with you. (I’m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). The meeting was fairly well attended – we counted some 26 heads (not including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other’s territory and the whole thing will land in court. “Give me figures that I can use,” he said. We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a single hertz of the spectrum without a fight. Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply that already apply to other media like print and TV.) TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so unilaterally. Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. Sajan.  From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 08:46:17 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 06:46:17 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Mumbai on 20 Oct 2004 Message-ID: <20041019064617.24151.qmail@webmail9.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/2cd31d85/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- Dear Chandita and others, TRAI's Open House discussion on "Licensing Issues related to Community Radio" will be held tomorrow in Mumbai. Date: 20.10.2004 (Wednesday) Venue: Regency Hall, Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu, Mumbai Time: 11.00 A.M. to 1.30 P.M. All the members on this list who live in (and around) Mumbai should make a valiant attempt to attend the meeting. Rope in a few journos, if you can. Just for the record, TRAI also serves a pretty decent lunch! Sajan. From arunlists at softhome.net Tue Oct 19 09:14:35 2004 From: arunlists at softhome.net (Arun Mehta) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:44:35 +0530 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> References: <20041018095049.32511.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <20041019124435.308580065.arunlists@softhome.net> Two issues need urgent attention. Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc to the private sector. They are likely to move over to revenue sharing, but aren't yet there. In order not to charge community radio these fees, a clear distinction is needed. Now, what kind of definition can we live with? The kind that does not exclude any genuine entity wishing to start a community radio station? Second intruiging possibility, we can claim, for community radio, public broadcaster status. That way, we get access to reserved frequencies, and other benefits that government seeks to secure for Prasar Bharati. Do we want to try for that now, or wait until community stations are stable? Anyway, community radio definition first, and for good measure, of public service broadcasting. At http://www.rabe.ch/kulturradio/kulturradio_eng.html I found Definition of a community radio (in accordance with www.amrac.org) Community radios ... 1. ... promote the right to communication and facilitate the freedom of speech, encourage creative and diverse statements and contribute to a democratic process and a pluralistic society. 2. ... provide education and production possibilities and are responsible for the transmission. They encourage local creative talents, cultivate local traditions and broadcast an entertaining, educational and development promoting programme for its listeners. 3. ... secure the ownership of the radio in a way, that it is owned by local representatives of a visible community or an interest community. 4. ... are editorially independent of governments, trade, religious institutions and political parties in the compilation of their radio programme. 5. ... make sure that marginalised groups and minorities have access to the radio and secure as well as promote cultural and linguistic diversity. 6. ... make sure that the listeners receive information on the base of multiple sources and points of view and allow space for opposing points of view from each person or organisation. 7. ... are organisations, which work on a non-profit basis in order to maintain their independency and are financed by a multitude of donors. 8. ... recognise and respect voluntary work and acknowledge the right of paid work for organisational matters and for the elaboration of working structures, which are beneficial for all people involved. 9. ... elaborate management forms, programme structures and working conditions, which rule out any discrimination and are accessible to all people involved, employees and voluntary helpers alike. 10. ... maintain communication with other community radios in order to promote and raise understanding on peace questions, tolerance, democracy and development. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Public%20service%20broadcasting says Public service broadcasting (often abbreviated to PSB) A public service broadcaster is not broadcasting for commercial ends but rather aims at social betterment. For this reason, PSB is often incompatible with commercial stations. For the same reason, it is often seen as being overly paternalistic in nature. Perhaps the most famous example of a "public service broadcaster" (in theory if not in practice) is the BBC. There is no standard definition of what PSB is exactly, although a number of official bodies have attempted to pick out the key characteristics. The Broadcasting Research Unit lists the following: * Geographic universality - that the stations' broadcasts are available nationwide, with no exception .. * Catering for all interests and tastes ... * Catering for minorities - much as above, but with racial and sexual minorities etc. ... * Concern for national identity and community - this essentially means that the stations should in the most part commission programmes from within the country, which may be more expensive than importing shows from abroad. * Detachment from vested interests and government - in other words, programming should be impartial, and the stations should not pander to the desires of advertisers or government. In practice however, such impartiality is questionable, even with the BBC. ... * One broadcasting system to be directly funded by the corpus of users ... * Competition in good programming rather than numbers - quality is the prime concern with a true public service broadcaster. ... * Guidelines to liberate programme makers and not restrict them - in the UK, guidelines, and not laws, govern what a programme maker can and cannot do, although these guidelines can be backed up by hefty penalties. Arun > ------------Original Message------------ > From: sajan venniyoor > To: cr-india at sarai.net > Date: Mon, Oct-18-2004 3:21 PM > Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions > > Dear all, > > The TRAI Open House discussion on CR just got over, and I’ll share some > first impressions with you. (I’m sure Ashish of OneWorld or someone > else will bring out a more detailed report by and by). > > The meeting was fairly well attended – we counted some 26 heads (not > including two commercial FM operators) - OneWorld, Charkha, I4D, Sruthi, > Radiophony and a few others. TRAI was represented by Pradip Baijal > (Chairman), Rakesh Kacker (Advisor), Dr.DPS Seth (Member, TRAI) and AK > Bhatnagar (Advisor). There were also a few AIR Engineers in attendance. > > The four major issues that were discussed were (1) Eligibility criteria > (2) Licensing process (3) Funding and (4) Regulation and monitoring. > > Pradip Baijal flagged the one central issue as far as TRAI is > concerned: with a new policy being framed for commercial FM, how does one > distinguish between commercial and community FM? TRAI wants to make a clear > distinction between commercial operators and community radio in terms of > area of coverage, transmitter power, foreign funding, advertisement > revenue and a host of other parameters. Otherwise, as Mr. Baijal says, > sooner or later someone will encroach upon the other’s territory and the > whole thing will land in court. “Give me figures that I can use,” he > said. > > We have discussed these issues before, and even worked out some > figures, but we may have to tread warily around the territory being claimed by > commercial operators. And they claim the whole lot: the Radio Mirchi > team grandstanded all the way, and they seem determined not to concede a > single hertz of the spectrum without a fight.  > > Of course, other issues were also debated at length (for instance, > eligibility criteria, where TRAI went along with the suggestion that > eligibility criteria should be kept open, and similar criteria should apply > that already apply to other media like print and TV.) > > TRAI has asked us to go through the Issues for Consultation once again, > work out some plausible figures for CR, and send our recommendations > without delay. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that they will do so > unilaterally. > > Vickram was here in Delhi to attend the TRAI meet. I hope someone in > Mumbai organizes a fair crowd on 20th Oct. Good luck. > > Sajan.  > > > _______________________________________________ cr-india mailing list > cr-india at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india From venniyoor at rediffmail.com Tue Oct 19 12:23:20 2004 From: venniyoor at rediffmail.com (sajan venniyoor) Date: 19 Oct 2004 10:23:20 -0000 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/6fc0f0e3/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let’s take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 07:59:09 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:59:09 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions In-Reply-To: <20041019102320.9150.qmail@webmail7.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <002401c4b669$f0efb880$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other related rulings/laws) would serve as the legal framework that the SC itself might use to check whether a policy for commercial and non-commercial licensing is conformant and if not, which parties need relief. Given that, the question of distinction and policy parameters (for items Sajan has lined up) becomes more specific. 1. What distinctions will be legally tenable? 2. Which parameters of this list that TRAI was figures are likely be to the most contentious? Members on this list who've already studied this matter for other countries (within their respective legal frameworks) can perhaps focus the conversation here. -Subbu -----Original Message----- From: cr-india-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:cr-india-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of sajan venniyoor Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:23 AM To: cr-india at sarai.net Subject: Re: Re: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Arun Mehta wrote : >Mr. Baijal explained why he needed a clear definition of community >radio: they are charging license fees, entry fees, spectrum fees etc >to the private sector. In order not to charge community radio these >fees, a clear distinction is needed. 1. Do we object in principle to paying any sort of fee? In our 'consensus document' (draft CR policy), we had proposed a token license fee (Rs.5000) and spectrum fee, as befits a low-power, not-for-profit, public service channel. If commercial advertisements are permitted on CR, can we legitimately expect the Govt. to waive all such fees? >Now, what kind of definition can >we live with? 2. The Amarc definition of CR is excellent, and we could certainly use it to define the purpose of community radio. But Pradip Baijal wants us to back it up with hard figures. So, what kind of figures can we live with? Let's take some of the parameters we discussed yesterday, to which we can actually put some figures: 1. License fee 2. Spectrum Usage Fee 3. Bank Guarantee 4. Transmitter power 5. Antenna height 6. Permissible coverage area of CR station 7. Quantum of advertisements per hour of programming 8. Permissible limit of advertisement revenue per CR station 9. Number of licenses per CR licensee 10. Frequencies to be allotted for CR / Maximum number of CR stations per location 11. Period of license / period of extension 12. Time limit for clearances 13. Period for preserving audio logs This is not a definitive list, and there are a number of other licensing and funding issues that will also have to be addressed. Could we work out some figures for the above that will serve our purpose, without giving CR all the advantages of a commercial operator and none of the responsibilities? Sajan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20041019/588f3ee8/attachment-0002.htm From subbuvincent at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 08:07:52 2004 From: subbuvincent at yahoo.com (Subramaniam Vincent) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:07:52 -0700 Subject: [cr-india] TRAI Open House in Delhi - first impressions Message-ID: <003401c4b66b$28a64e00$0200a8c0@SVNotebook> >From Arun and Sajan's notes it looks like TRAI is particularly concerned that the matter shouldn't land up in the Courts. The concern about litigation -- that private operators may sue under the grounds of and 'unlevel playing field' or the converse, that non-commercial entities seek redressal -- is definitely a good place to start searching for defintions, distinctions, etc. My sense is this: Perspectives on 'definition' must inform the working out of clear 'distinctions'. Broad distinctions must in turn help demarcate parameter ranges and policy waivers wherever relevant. Let's look at this from point of view of the Courts. Let's say there is a litigation (and there well might be). Broadly, the Consitution, the SC 95 ruling (and perhaps other r