)
So, net neutrality has caught the imagination of millions of Indians fighting for their ‘right to freedom’. That’s good because who wants discrimination on the internet platform vis-à-vis paying for a service. International examples of net neutrality only strengthen the view that there’s no room for discrimination on paying for online services and offerings. This may not be a like to like comparison, technically speaking, but let’s look beyond the Internet to see how platforms and content are priced.
When India shifted from cable television to direct-to-home (DTH) satellite service more than a decade ago, price was the biggest hurdle. Used to watching hundreds of channels on cable TV (sometimes across multiple TV sets at home) for Rs 150 to 200 a month, pay and free-to-air channels meant the same to the user. To compete with cable TV, DTH began with a moderate access fee and offered scores of channels in a combination of ‘bouquets’ and ’à la carte’ (a term otherwise used for meals served in hotels, apart from the set menu). We got used to quality pictures and service (well, most of the time), and paid a premium for information and entertainment.
ALSO READ: India does not need net neutrality
But with time, the premium has grown many times, and we don’t seem to care much. As an analyst tracking the TV industry had pointed out many years ago, Indians must understand that there’s a price for watching entertainment and even news on the idiot box. His argument was, if one was ready to spend thousands on dining out and watching movies every month, why won’t he pay at least a few hundreds for wholesome entertainment on TV ! Well, we are what we are, but the monthly DTH bill, which has been rising and rising, could make one sit up.
The math is complex and beyond reason. Even if you take the English news channel bouquet for a price, there are some outliers, for which you pay more to subscribe. Even if you buy a bouquet of movie channels, apart from your basic pack, some of the good ones still get left out. So you pay more for watching Warner Brothers and again for MGM, for instance. Sports is what one pays the most for, I guess. The subscription packs never give you what you are waiting to watch. So depending on whether its cricket, hockey, soccer, badminton or boxing season, you keep adding the channels and inflate your monthly bill, based on who’s got the broadcasting rights for which event. A single broadcaster has multiple channels for various sport events now, making it complicated and of course expensive.
While net neutrality is being debated by the government, the telecom regulator, industry and the netizens, perhaps somebody should watch the television distribution industry too. How is one to decide what should be à la carte, special or part of a package, and what should be its price. If shopping freely on the Net, hopping from one e-commerce company to another or updating pictures and status on a social networking site without worrying about paying for a specific service is like oxygen to millions, so can be the case for many others watching a sport they love on TV. Let business interests (whether in TV or internet) not spoil the party!
